Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

London County Council (Tramways and Improvements).

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 6th March.

Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill (by Order),

Southern Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Thames Conservancy Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Tynemouth Corporation Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Tynemouth Water Charges) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — AMERICAN CONSULATE, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the grave inconvenience imposed upon people of the north-east of
England who desire to go to the United States of America because of the fact that there is no American Consulate in the city of Newcastle-on-Tyne; and will he take up this matter with the American Government with a view to the reestablishing of the Consulate in that city?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Ponsonby): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is hoped to take a favourable opportunity of again discussing the matter with the United States Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUHR OCCUPATION.

GERMAN PRISONERS.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the imprisonment of German political prisoners from the Ruhr district at the French prison of St. Martin de Ré; whether he has any official information showing that they are to be transported to Cayenne or some French tropical Colony; and, if so, whether, in view of the provisions of the Versailles Treaty, representations will be made to the French Government on the subject?

Mr. PONSONBY: My information is to the effect that there are no German political prisoners at St. Martin de Ré, but only persons convicted for criminal offences. It is further understood that the French Government have no intention of transporting them to Cayenne or elsewhere. The third part of the question does not therefore arise, but in any case my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not see that any provision of the Treaty of Versailles would warrant His Majesty's Government making official representations to the French Government on the subject.

COAL AND COKE DELIVERY.

Mr. AYLES: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the average monthly delivery of coal and coke from the Ruhr on account of reparations since the cessation of passive resistance; what were the average monthly deliveries prior to January, 1923; and the average monthly deliveries during the passive resistance period?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I have been asked to reply, and, as the answer is a long one, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The average monthly deliveries of coal, including coke expressed in terms of coal, made by Germany on reparation account were as follows:





Tons.


For the year 1921
…
…
1,500,000


For the year 1922
…
…
1,505,000


For the year 1923 no coal or coke obtained since the occupation of the Ruhr has been credited to Germany or debited to the receiving countries by the Reparation Commission on reparation account, excepting in the case of Italy, to whom the German Government continued to make deliveries for the greater part of the year.

According to information supplied by the British delegate of the Reparation Commission, it is believed that the average monthly quantities obtained by the Allies concerned, exclusive of certain quantities reported to have been received by Luxembourg against payment to the German suppliers, was as follows:



Tons.


January to September, 1923 (passive resistance period) (including a monthly average of 129,600 tons delivered to Italy on reparation account)
547,700


October, 1923, to January, 1924 (after passive resistance ceased) (including up to 17th December a certain quantity delivered to Italy on reparation account)
996,400

The above figures are for coal (including coke, in terms of coal; that is, three tons of coke equal four tons of coal).

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE.

Sir BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Captain O'Grady's appointment as British representative in Russia has received the sanction of the Soviet Government?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Is it in order to refer to an hon. Member of this House by name, as is done in this question?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member should have been referred to as the hon. Member for South-East Leeds.

Mr. PONSONBY: I have nothing to add to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull and to the hon. Member for Dartford on Monday last.

Sir B. SHEFFIELD: Has the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds ever been put before the Soviet Government? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]

Mr. PONSONBY: I have nothing to add to the reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY.

Mr. AYLES: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the conditions of 20th November, 1919, on which the Supreme Council recognised Hungary, were not broken by an Act of Parliament elected according to those conditions, but by decree and without its consent; that that violation was published as Ministerial Order No. 2200, 1922, in the official Gazette of 3rd March, 1922, and that that decree disfranchised nearly one million people who had been guaranteed enfranchisement in a country whose total population is under eight millions; and, considering that there was open terrorism at the elections of April, 1922, conducted under that decree when the present Parliament was elected, and that that decree only applies during the life of the present National Assembly, will he use his influence in the League of Nations to see that adequate guarantees to carry out the original conditions are given before the suggested loan is granted, in order that a truly substantial and national guarantee may be given to the subscribers?

Mr. PONSONBY: I regret that in the reply given on the 20th instant to a similar question standing in the name of the hon. Member it was erroneously stated that legislation restricting the franchise was passed by the Hungarian Parliament. A Franchise Bill was, in
fact, introduced on 11th February, 1922, but failed to pass into law, the mandate of the National Assembly expiring only six days later. A Government Decree was published in the official Gazette of 2nd March, in which the provisions of the Bill, with certain modifications to meet the proposals of the Opposition, were embodied. As regards the second part of his question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of the 20th instant and also to the answer I gave to his supplementary question

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what date he hopes to make effective the introduction of the five-year British passport?

Mr. PONSONBY: I am not yet in a position to give any definite date. Various matters connected with such an issue have to be considered and arranged.

Mr. GILBERT: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many countries in Europe still insist on visas on British passports; if any negotiations are proceeding with any of these countries in order to obtain their agreement for the withdrawal of such visas; and is the Government prepared to withdraw their demand for British visas if other countries do so?

Mr. PONSONBY: British subjects require visas on their passports for entry into all European countries except France, Belgium, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Italy, Holland, Spain, Norway and Sweden, and, as from 1st March next, Denmark, His Majesty's Government having concluded with the Governments of these countries arrangements for the mutual abolition of visas. No negotiations are at present proceeding for the extension of these arrangements to other European countries, but His Majesty's Government are, of course, always ready to give all possible consideration to any proposals for this purpose which foreign Governments may desire to submit to them.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will not the British Government itself initiate further proposals to foreign countries? With the exception of early and satisfactory moves
in this direction by Belgium and France, we have always shown ourselves ready to give a lead in this direction.

Mr. PONSONBY: I shall require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

COASTGUARDS (COTTAGE ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. CRITTALL: 14.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that there are six cottages at Tollesbury, four cottages at Burnham-on-Crouch, and six cottages at Bradwell-on-Sea, built in connection with the coastguard, which have been vacant for 12 months past; and whether, in view of the acute shortage of houses in these places, he will arrange for them to be let to private individuals?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. F. Hodges): The number of empty houses at the stations referred to is correctly stated, but they have not all been empty for 12 months, the last house at Bradwell having been vacated as recently as last month. Negotiations are in progress for surrendering the houses at Tollesbury, which are only held on lease, to the lessor. The other properties will shortly be offered for sale by public auction, due notice of which will be given in the Press, and it is not proposed in the meantime to let any of the houses.

Captain TERRELL: Is it a fact that the four cottages at Burnham-on-Crouch have been vacant for 12 months?

Mr. HODGES: No, Sir; I think that applies to only three of them.

NEW CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 16.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if, in view of its importance to all shipbuilding centres, he can now state whether it is the intention of the Government to carry out the policy of the last Ministry with regard to expediting the carrying out of what is known as the cruiser programme, with the object of relieving unemployment in those districts where no other form of work is of any use whatever to the skilled men concerned; whether he is aware that in Barrow 1,000 more men will within a very short time probably be discharged owing to the completion of the gun-mounting work on which
they are engaged; and whether he is aware that the towns engaged in shipbuilding and steel manufacture are among those where the depression is greatest at the present moment?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 21st February to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull. I am aware of the position at Barrow and all relevant factors will be considered when orders for new naval work are placed.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any decision has been come to with regard to the balance of that naval programme, including submarines?

Mr. AMMON: No decision has yet been arrived at on that point.

Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the hon. Member bear in mind the claims of those towns whose working population was largely increased owing to the War and which peace conditions cannot absorb?

Viscountess ASTOR: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot go all round the dockyards.

Sir GRATTAN DOYLE: 18.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware of the serious amount of unemployment in Newcastle and on the Tyne; and if he will say what, proportion of the new Admiralty work it is proposed to allocate to this district?

Mr. AMMON: I am aware of the position and firms on the Tyne capable of building a cruiser are being invited to tender. The allocation of the orders cannot be forecast, but, when Parliamentary approval to the programme has been given, will be decided after receipt of the tenders and full consideration of all relevant factors.

Sir G. DOYLE: Will the hon. Member see that an effective promise is given with regard to the time, and will he bear in mind that every shipbuilding yard in Newcastle and on the Tyne is capable of building a cruiser?

Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the electoral pressure
which can be exercised by the various parties is a relative consideration?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 20.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is to be the displacement, speed, armament, and approximate cost of the five new light cruisers for which tenders are to be invited; and how many of these new light cruisers is it intended to build in the Royal Dockyards?

Mr. AMMON: It would be contrary to the usual practice and not in the public interest to publish details of these vessels at present, but they will, of course, conform to the requirements of the Washington Naval Treaty. It is undesirable to give any estimated cost until tenders have been submitted and accepted, but the Admiralty expect the cost to be between 1½ and 2 millions. It is the intention that three of the cruisers should be built in His Majesty's Dockyards, namely, one each at Portsmouth, Devonport and Chatham.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Member state when these details as to size, speed, etc., will be published, and is he aware that before the War, when we were faced with a naval menace, these particulars were given in order that the public might be informed as to the strength of the Navy, and which will have to be given sooner or later?

Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that before the War particulars were only given in the discussion on the Navy Estimates for the first time?

Major HORE-BELISHA: 27.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what additions to the personnel of the Navy the proposed construction of the five light cruisers will involve?

Mr. AMMON: The effect of the building of the cruisers, if approved by Parliament, on the number of the personnel of the Royal Navy must depend upon the decisions come to on the replacement programme which is to be the subject of investigation by His Majesty's Government. The numbers of Vote A to be proposed to this House for 1924–25 will not include any additional provision for the cruisers.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 34.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the proposed
programme of naval construction, whether it is the intention of the Government to carry out the plans of his predecessor and to lay down this year three submarines and a submarine depot ship, two destroyers and a destroyer depot ship, and two gunboats of a special shape for the Persian Gulf, an aircraft carrier, and a mine-laying vessel; whether he endorses the view of his predecessor that all of the above are necessary requirements most urgently needed for replacement; and to how many men the construction of the above-mentioned vessels would give employment, and what addition would it involve to the Naval Estimates in the coming year?

Mr. AMMON: No, Sir. The Government have decided that, subject to the necessary Parliamentary sanction, five cruisers and two destroyers shall be laid down, and this House has already been informed that they have appointed a Cabinet Committee to consider the requirements of the Navy as regards the replacement of units of the Fleet. Had the full programme of the late Government been embodied in the Navy Estimates for 1924–25 and been approved by this House, the extra cost involved would have been approximately three million pounds in 1924–25, and the additional number of men employed about 14,000.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand from the hon. Gentleman's answer that His Majesty's Government adhere to the principle of a one-power standard?

Mr. AMMON: I think the Noble Lord had better not construe any more than is contained in the answer.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Are we to understand that two destroyers are being built in addition to five cruisers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course!"]

Mr. AMMON: Yes, subject to Parliamentary sanction. That is in accordance with the statement which I made on Monday last.

Major HORE-BELISHA: As the Government are so solicitous about unemployment, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that it would be worth while to spend this extra £3,000,000?

Mr. AMMON: That is a question for the Cabinet.

Mr. PRINGLE: 38.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what
is the estimated cost of building and completing the new cruisers of 10,000 tons as compared with the cost of the vessels they are to replace?

Mr. AMMON: I have answered the first part of the question in my reply to question No. 20 by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). The total cost of a "County" class cruiser was approximately £950,000.

Mr. PRINGLE: 39.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what will be the cost of maintaining in commission a cruiser of 10,000 tons as compared with one of those to be replaced?

Mr. AMMON: The annual cost, at present prices, of maintaining in full commission in home waters a cruiser of 10,000 tons would amount to about £259,000, as compared with £214,800 for a cruiser of the "County" class which it is to replace.

Captain BERKELEY: Is not the cost increased on foreign service, and are not these cruisers designed for foreign service on trade routes?

Mr. AMMON: The cost is increased chiefly in regard to provisions, wages, etc.

Mr. STRANGER: 59.
asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made for allocating the contracts for building the new light cruisers to areas where unemployment is most serious?

Mr. AMMON: I have been asked to reply and would refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's reply of the 25th February.

Captain W. BENN: Does the Prime Minister consider that the existence of unemployment is a reason for the increase of armaments?

DIRECTOR OF NAVAL CONSTRUCTION.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 17.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Director of Naval Construction has recently resigned his appointment; and can he indicate why no fresh appointment has been made to this post?

Mr. HODGES: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. An announcement on the subject will be I made as soon as possible.

SAILORS' PENSIONS (PAYMENT TO PARENTS).

Mr. THURTLE: 22.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to amend existing regulations in order that pensions may be paid to the parent, or parents, of sailors who lose their lives in the service of the country, when it can be established that such sailors were, at the time of their death, making allowances to their parents?

Mr. AMMON: This question is now under consideration, but my hon. Friend will realise that the Admiralty is not the only Department involved.

SEAMAN'S DISCHARGE (MR. STEAD).

Mr. LUMLEY: 24.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that Mr. Stead, ex-able-seaman in the Royal Navy, No. J 43,310, who served through the late War and up till recently in the Royal Navy, has been discharged as unfit from defective vision; that the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, considers that, in spite of his service, his disability is neither due to nor aggravated by it; and will he endeavour to have his case reconsidered by the Royal Hospital, or, in view of his war service, by the Ministry of Pensions?

Mr. AMMON: As this question deals with an individual case I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL EEPORT.

The reply is as follows:

This case has been carefully considered by the naval medical authorities, and I regret that it cannot be accepted that Mr. Stead's disability is either due to or aggravated by service conditions. I understand, however, that if he claims that his disability is due to war service he has the right of appeal to the Ministry of Pensions. The allusion to the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, which has no jurisdiction in the matter, appears to be an error for the Royal Naval Hospital, Chatham, where the man was surveyed prior to invaliding.

"HAWKINS" AND "EMERALD" CLASSES.

Viscount CURZON: 25.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when it is expected that the uncompleted ships of the "Hawkins" and "Emerald" classes will be completed;
and how long these ships have been under construction?

Mr. AMMON: The uncompleted ships are "Frobisher," "Effingham," "Emerald" and "Enterprise." I will, with the Noble Lord's permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Viscount CURZON: May we take it that the construction of these ships is to be pressed forward with all possible speed? Has not one of them been under construction for several years?

Mr. AMMON: We will give consideration to that question.

The details promised are as follow:

"Frobisher," laid down in August, 1916. Due to complete about the end of June next.

"Effingham," laid down in April, 1917. Due to complete about March, 1925.

"Enterprise," laid down in June, 1018. Due to complete about July, 1925.

"Emerald," laid down in September, 1918. Due to complete about March, 1925.

LEADING RATINGS (PAY).

Viscountess ASTOR: 28.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when a decision will be given on Item 9 of 1922 Welfare Conference, relative to a second triennial increase of substantive pay to leading ratings passed for petty officer?

Mr. HODGES: An Admiralty Fleet Order is being issued to the effect that it is not possible to accede to this request.

INVENTORS' RIGHTS.

Viscountess ASTOR: 29.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a decision has yet been reached with regard to Item 52 of the 1922 Welfare Conference relative to the right of inventors to their own inventions, provided such inventions are of commercial value but of no use to the Board of Admiralty?

Mr. HODGES: This matter is still under the consideration of the Government. It is already the usual practice of the Admiralty to allow the inventor the rights in the invention if it evidently is of no use to the Government.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Why is this matter still under consideration, because
the same answer was given in June of last year?

Mr. HODGES: I do not suppose that the facts have materially changed since June last.

OIL-CARRYING VESSELS.

Mr. THOMAS HENDERSON: 30.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can inform the House whether the oil-carrying vessels supplying oil to His Majesty's Fleet are owned by the Admiralty; and, if the vessels are not owned by the Government, will he be prepared to advise His Majesty's Government to lay down oil-carrying vessels in the shipyards of the country, thereby assisting to reduce unemployment in the shipbuilding industry?

Mr. AMMON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and the second does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. HENDERSON: If the policy of the Government is to provide work for the unemployed, does he not think that the shipyards of the country could build oil-carrying vessels and not ships of war, and will he consider the advisability of putting down oil-carrying vessels?

Mr. AMMON: While probably agreeing with my hon. Friend, we do not want any more, and therefore there is no reason for laying them down.

Captain BENN: Do the Government accept the principle that unemployment is a reason for an increase of armaments?

MESSING SYSTEM (PORTSMOUTH).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 31.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction exists at the methods adopted for the preparation and cooking of the food under the general messing system at Portsmouth, which is helping to make an otherwise excellent system unpopular; and whether he will consider placing the preparation and cooking under the entire supervision of the naval cookery officers instead of officers of the paymaster branch?

Mr. AMMON: The Admiralty has no reason to think that the conditions suggested by the hon. Member exist, but enquiries are now being made.

Sir B. FALLE: Is the hon. Member aware that the breakfast is cooked
between the hours of 12 midnight and 4 a.m., and dinner between 4 a.m. and 8 a.m., and is heated when the dinner time arrives, with the consequence that, although the food is excellent, it is completely spoiled?

Mr. AMMON: My hon. Friend will observe that inquiries are being made, and no doubt those facts will come to light.

Viscountess ASTOR: As cooking is a skilled operation, is it not necessary that it should be done by trained cooks, instead of under the supervision of naval paymasters?

PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD (ESTABLISHED LIST).

Sir B. FALLE: 32.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when the last workmen were placed on the established list of Portsmouth Dockyard; and when it is likely that further additions to the established list will be made?

Mr. HODGES: The last transfer of [...] workman to the established list was on the first of the present month; nominations are about to be made for the establishment of about a dozen men in vacancies.

PENSIONS (WIDOWS).

Sir B. FALLE: 33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to give the balance of pensions for the year to the widow of a naval pensioner in the event of the pensioner dying before he has completed one year as a pensioner?

Mr. HODGES: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply of the 19th February to the hon. Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor), a copy of which I am sending him.

BOY ARTIFICERS.

Mr. GILBERT: 35.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many boy artificers are appointed by the Navy annually; whether these boys are drawn from any particular class of school; whether any number is allocated to any towns or districts in the country: how many places are allotted to London; and if the education authority is invited to submit names for the vacancies?

Mr. HODGES: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's
permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:

The number of artificer apprentices entered annually depends on requirements, which vary from time to time. 103 were entered from the two examinations held last year.

There are two examinations yearly:—

(1) Open competition in April, conducted by the Civil Service Commission. Any boy within the prescribed limits of age may compete.
(2) October examination for boys recommended by Educational Authorities throughout the United Kingdom. (This system has recently been extended to recommendations by Officers Commanding Territorial Cadet Units in the case of boys who, having left school, cannot obtain a recommendation from an Educational Authority.)

Candidates for the October examination are expected to have spent at least one year in a school providing education of a Secondary or Higher Grade Elementary type; but an Educational Authority may in special cases apply to the Admiralty for this condition to be waived.

Proportions of the vacancies are not allocated to any particular towns or districts.

Educational Authorities are not actually invited each year to submit names, but the system is well known throughout the country, and applications naturally emanate in the first place from the candidates themselves.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: 36.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a new scheme for Government employés has yet been prepared for submission to the registrar which will bring the Government scheme into accord with the recent Workmen's Compensation Act; and will he see that it is made operative as from the date the new Act came into force?

Mr. HODGES: The Government compensation scheme expired on the 31st December, 1923, but was re-certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies for a
further period of five years. The necessary changes were then made in the scheme by the Registrar, under the powers conferred upon him by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, to bring it into accord with the Act. The scheme as thus revised has been offered to the workmen concerned, and, so far as can be ascertained, is being accepted by nearly all of them. It is not possible to apply the scheme as such to workmen who were injured between the 1st January, 1924, and the promulgation of the new scheme, but special arrangements have been made to meet any such cases which may arise.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (COMMERCIAL SHIPBUILDING).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the decreased employment in the Royal dockyards that must follow the policy of limitation of naval armaments, and the consequent distress involved to the men who have been trained for work in the Royal dockyards and for whom there is no alternative occupation, and in view of the wastage of the taxpayers' capital involved by the progressive disuse of the yards in question, he will take steps to appoint forthwith a Royal Commission which could be instructed to consider and report upon the possibility of utilising the dockyards for commercial shipbuilding?

Mr. AMMON: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. I have no reason for anticipating any cessation of the economical use of the principal Royal yards for necessary naval work. The possibilities of employing the Royal yards on commercial work were fully explored by the Colwyn Committee in 1919. The Report is contained in Command Paper 581 of 1920.

Mr. MILLS: Will the Government consider the possibility, if they cannot utilise them for commercial shipbuilding, of breaking up obsolete ships of war by direct labour in their own dockyards, rather than allow it under sweated conditions to shipbreakers in the Dover area?

Mr. AMMON: I think I had better ask for notice of that question.

Major WHELER: What did the hon. Gentleman mean when he used the words "principal dockyards"?

Mr. AMMON: It means those dockyards which are the principal dockyards.

Captain BERKELEY: Will the Government recognise that if the policy of limitation of armaments be followed, the consequent distress will be very much greater than that in the dockyards at present?

MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.

Mr. AYLES: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether the increase in the Mediterranean Fleet indicates a change of policy on the part of the Government; and, if so, whether he is in a position to state what that policy is?

Mr. AMMON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not, therefore, arise.

BRITISH COTTON GOODS (GERMAN IMPORT LICENCES).

Mr. WADDINGTON: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the German Government refuse to allow import licences for British cotton goods, and that this is causing serious unemployment in Lancashire; is he aware that the prices charged in Germany for German cotton goods are in excess of world prices, and that the removal of the prohibition will enable large quantities of Lancashire goods to be exported to Germany; and will he make urgent representations to the German Government?

Mr. W. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the difficulty, and if import licences were given more freely by Germany the Lancashire cotton trade might, no doubt, benefit. As regards the second part of the question, statements have appeared in the German Press, the effect of which is that prices of textiles in Germany are high in relation to world prices. As at present advised, I do not

—
Number of light cruisers built on 27th February, 1924, less than 12 years old.
Number of light cruisers actually building on 27th February, 1924.
Number of light cruisers in full commission.


British Empire
…
…
46
4
34


Japan
…
…
16
6
14


France
…
…
4
3
4


U.S.A
…
…
7
3
7

think that there is any action which His Majesty's Government could usefully take in the matter. As I informed my hon. Friend, the Member for West Leicester, on Monday, the German tendency at present is towards the removal of import licence requirements.

Mr. WADDINGTON: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration that the 26 per cent. Reparation Tax is just about to be largely reduced; and will he make that a lever to obtain a corresponding advantage to British traders?

Mr. LUNN: I cannot go into that question.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Have we no control over them?

Captain BERKELEY: Will the Government consider the possibility of using the claims that we have against the Germans as a means of obtaining freedom of trade for that country?

Mr. LUNN: I do not think that that arises out of the question on the Paper.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Cannot the hon. Gentleman make it a condition of the 26 per cent.?

GREAT POWERS (NAVAL STRENGTH).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 19.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what are the numbers of light cruisers built and actually building, respectively, and less than 12 years old, belonging to the British Empire, France, Japan, and the United States of America; and how many of these are in full commission?

Mr. AMMON: As the reply is in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:

Mr. THURTLE: 21.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can supply information as to the number of battleships, battle-cruisers, cruisers, torpedo-boats, and torpedo-boat destroyers at present on the effective list

—
Battleships.
Battle cruisers.
Cruisers (including light cruisers).
Destroyers (including flotilla leaders).
Torpedo boats.


British Empire
18
4
48
201
Nil


France
9
Nil
16
56
11


Italy
7
Nil
15
63
71

Viscount CURZON: 26.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the latest known figures with regard to the light cruiser strength of the British, American, Japanese, and French Navies, classifying the cruisers into those suitable for Fleet work and those suitable for commerce, destruction, and protection?

Mr. AMMON: The number of cruisers and light cruisers is as follows:


British Empire
…
48


United States of America
…
29


Japan
…
28


France
…
16


All the cruisers, British and foreign, may be considered suitable for general Fleet work under conditions of limited radius. All the foreign cruisers are suitable for commerce destruction, and 20 of the British are suitable for commerce protection.

EX-SERVICE MEN.

NAVAL PRIZE DEPARTMENT.

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: 23.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many ex-service men are at present under notice in the naval prize branch, Cornwall House; and whether any steps are being taken to find them employment in other Departments?

Mr. HODGES: There are 86 ex-service men under notice for discharge from the naval prize branch. In accordance with the usual procedure the names and particulars of these men are being forwarded to the Joint Substitution Board.

of the Navies of Great Britain, France, and Italy, respectively?

Mr. AMMON: As the reply is in tabular form, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:

UNEMPLOYMENT.

Captain BOWYER: 67.
asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men are now unemployed; and of these how many are disabled or in receipt of pensions?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Thomas Shaw): It is estimated that 300,000 ex-service men are registered at the Employment Exchanges as unemployed. Recent figures are not available with regard to the numbers of unemployed ex-service men in receipt of disability pension, but steps are being taken to obtain this information. Those registered for employment whose war disability is regarded as a substantial handicap in obtaining employment number 11,597.

KING'S ROLL.

Captain BOWYER: 68.
asked the Minister of Labour how many out of all the local authorities in England and Scotland, respectively, are now upon the King's Roll; and how many of these restrict, or give a preference in letting, contracts to firms which are upon the roll?

Mr. SHAW: 1,132 local authorities in England and 141 in Scotland are on the King's Roll. The majority of local authorities not on the Roll employ only a small staff; it is therefore difficult for them to qualify for enrolment. 156 local authorities in England and 10 in Scotland restrict their contracts to firms on the King's Roll, and 190 in England and 28 in Scotland give a preference to such firms.

Captain BOWYER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Ministry of Labour is doing anything and if so, what,
to increase the number of those local authorities who give preference?

Mr. SHAW: The policy of the Ministry has not been changed; it remains the policy of the late Government.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is Poplar on the roll?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the Government apply the Labour principle of work or maintenance to these ex-service men?

Mr. SHAW: The Ministry of Labour has no power to apply such principle.

Captain BOWYER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider changing the scheme in relation to these ex-service men?

Mr. SHAW: I am willing to consider any suggestions that are made by any hon. Member.

PLYMOUTH EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE.

Mr. THORNTON: 83.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the fact that a large number of suitable and well-qualified local ex-service men who are at present unemployed applied for the position of branch manager of the Plympton Employment Exchange and that an applicant from Exeter, who is a stranger to the district and who was already in other employment, has been selected for the position; and whether he will reconsider this appointment with a view to selecting a local ex-service man?

Mr. SHAW: Careful consideration was given to the claims of the local ex-service applicants for the part-time post of manager of the branch employment office at Plympton, but none of them was considered to be so well qualified as the candidate selected, who is himself an ex-service man.

Mr. THORNTON: Is it a fact that the man who has been appointed was already at work?

Mr. SHAW: My information is that the candidate selected had military service from 1914 to 1921, that he had been disabled overseas, that he no longer receives a pension, and that he was the best qualified man.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING (BOYS).

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour what provision, if any, is now made for the industrial or other training of boys leaving school at 14?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): I have been asked to reply to this question. For boys who are willing to attend school full time after 14, junior technical schools provide instruction adapted to their future occupations. For boys who will not attend full time, a substantial provision of facilities for instruction in subjects related to industrial occupations is made in most of the larger towns in England and Wales, in day and evening part-time classes.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: 43.
further asked the Minister of Labour the percentage of boys leaving school annually who become apprentices and, in particular, how many become apprentices in the building trade?

Mr. SHAW: I regret that nothing like precise information is available as to the number of boys becoming apprentices annually. As the question speaks of boys leaving school, I should add that in many trades, including the building industry, boys are not ordinarily bound apprentices before the age of 16.

INDUSTRIAL FATIGUE (MACHINE DESIGN).

Major MOULTON: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Medical Research Council and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research have recommended a course of research into questions of machine design, with a view to improving such design, so as to avoid unnecessary fatigue to the workers; and whether the Government propose to sanction such research and to provide funds for the same?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): Arrangements for an inquiry into this subject have been made by the Industrial Fatigue Research Board of the Medical Research Council, with the co-operation of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research upon the engineering side. The investigation
is at present limited in duration to one year, and it will not be necessary to make any addition to the usual financial provision for the work of the Departments concerned.

MINIMUM WAGE.

Mr. BAKER: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to set up a Minimum Wage Commission to fix legally binding minimum rates of wages.

Mr. SHAW: I regret that I am not in a position at the moment to make any statement upon this matter.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

GOVERNMENT BILL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is intended to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922, Clause 1, so as to increase the weekly rate of benefit in respect of each child of an insured person entitled to draw benefit; and, if so, to what amount?

Mr. SHAW: As I announced in the House last week, the Government have under consideration a comprehensive Unemployment Insurance Bill, and the point raised in the hon. and gallant Member's question is one of a number which are being examined in that connection.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill will be introduced?

Mr. SHAW: I hope to introduce it at the earliest possible moment, but it will contain a tremendous amount of detail, which needs to be carefully thought out, and I prefer to have it carefully drafted, rather than rush it in its preliminary stages.

INSURANCE ACT.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 61.
asked the Minister of Labour when he proposes to introduce his proposals for enlarging the present Unemployment Insurance Act?

Mr. BUCHANAN: 70.
asked the Minister of Labour when he proposes to deal with the matter of increased allowances to the unemployed, in view of the urgency of this question?

Mr. T. SHAW: I cannot yet add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member for Gorbals on Wednesday last.

RIVER THAMES (TOWPATHS).

Mr. PENNY: 63.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the recent representations made by the Government to the Thames Conservancy with a view to expediting work for the unemployed, some arrangement can be made for utilising the services of the unemployed in repairing the towpaths of the River Thames between Kingston Bridge and Hampton Court?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Jowett): It is not clear at the moment as to what body is responsible for the maintenance of this towpath, but the question is being investigated in view of the urgent need for action.

PUBLIC UTILITY SCHEMES.

Mr. W. A. JENKINS: 69.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider the advisability of setting up a National Employment Committee to investigate and recommend to the Government employment schemes of public utility on a scale commensurate with the present problem of unemployment?

Mr. SHAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 19th February to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton.

NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.

Sir G. DOYLE: 72.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and how this number compares with the last three months and this time last year.

Mr. SHAW: The number of persons registered at Employment Exchanges in the Newcastle-on-Tyne area at 18th February, 1924, was 17,624 as compared with 18,088 at 17th December, 1923, and 20,656 at 19th February, 1923.

BENEFIT (TRADE DISPUTES DISQUALIFICATION).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 73.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the delay on the part of the Trade Disputes Disqualification Committee in presenting their Report, he will introduce at once a Bill to remove the
injustices at present inflicted upon the innocent victims of a trade dispute who have contributed to the unemployment insurance fund and can draw no benefit?

Mr. SHAW: I am expecting to receive a report from the Committee shortly. It is desirable that I should be in possession of the Committee's views before deciding what action should be taken.

Mr. THOMSON: In view of the delay, extending over nearly two years during which the Committee has been sitting, will the right hon. Gentleman fix a limit as to the time that he is going to wait before action is taken?

Mr. SHAW: I shall take no steps as to fixing limits unless I am satisfied that the Committee is not making an effort to carry out its work.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that long before now the Committee was practically at a deadlock on this question and cannot arrive at a finding?

Mr. SHAW: The facts are, that immediately I came into the office that I now hold I asked the Committee to meet, and the Committee met immediately. Unless I am satisfied that the Committee has either come to a deadlock or has no intention of presenting a report, I cannot place a limit, which might be an insult to men who are working for the Government.

PORT GLASGOW EXCHANGE.

Mr. MURRAY: 75.
asked the Minister of Labour if it is by his instructions or in accordance with regulations that the manager of Port Glasgow Employment Exchange has notified all caulkers, drillers, rivetters, and other shipyard workers that they must be in attendance at the exchange from 7.45 till 8.15 each morning, on the chance of being sent to a vacancy; if he is aware that this is resented by the unemployed, who regard it as a scheme calculated to make them accept improper conditions offered by some employers; and, if so, if he will say whether he will consider an alteration of this practice?

Mr. SHAW: I am inquiring into this matter, and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

FOOTBALL MATCH STEWARDS.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 77.
asked the Minister of Labour whether unemployed men who act as stewards at football matches on Saturday afternoons and receive the sum of 4s. for doing so are entitled thereby to lose one day's unemployment benefit?

Mr. SHAW: Under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts it would appear that in the circumstances mentioned, unemployment benefit would not be payable for the day in question. Should it be desired to contest a decision to this effect in any particular case an appeal should be made to the local Court of Referees.

LEGITIMACY BILL.

Captain BOWYER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, and, if so, when, he intends to bring in a Legitimacy Bill, or does the Government intend to support and give time for the Legitimacy Bill in troduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Colonel Campion)?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): The Bill introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes is, I understand, similar in general outline to a Bill which has already been read a second time in another place. The Government expressed approval of the general principle of that Bill, and promised to confer with the promoters on the subsidiary questions involved in any legislation on this matter. If progress can be made with that Bill, it will not be necessary to proceed with the Bill introduced in this House.

Captain BOWYER: When that Bill comes here, are the Government prepared to give it facilities, and so persuade the promoters of the other private Member's Bill to take that out of its path?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will repeat that question when the Bill comes.

PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER.

Mr. WELLS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he has appointed a Member of the Government to represent the Charity Commissioners; and, if not, does he propose to do so?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Robert Richardson) has been appointed Parliamentary Charity Commissioner.

AMERICAN BEEF TRUST.

Mr. BOWERMAN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in any steps which His Majesty's Government may take towards securing a reduction in the present cost of living, an inquiry will be made into the operations in this country of the meat combination known as the American Beef Trust?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I have been asked to reply. The suggestion made by my right hon. Friend will receive consideration.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS).

Colonel ENGLAND: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government shortly to issue a daily news sheet reporting the operations of the Government Departments from day to day; whether the cost of the publication will be borne by public funds; and, if not, at whose charges will it appear?

The PRIME MINISTER: Communications to the Press with regard to matters of public interest are made as necessary from time to time. Nothing is further from the intention of His Majesty's Government than to issue a daily news sheet of the kind indicated in the hon. and gallant Member's question. The latter parts of the question do not, therefore, arise.

ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Sir LEONARD LYLE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government accepts the principle that Germany should pay reparations for material damage; and whether in that case he will consider the desirability of obtaining from that source further funds for the benefit of those torpedoed men of the British mercantile marine who lost everything in the War, and whose claims are now under consideration by the Reparations Claims Department?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): The obligation which Germany undertook by the Treaty of Versailles was to pay reparation to the Allied Governments not to individuals. To meet exceptional cases where the losses of individuals had not been made good by insurance or by compensation granted by the Government during the War, the British Government allotted a sum of £5,000,000 to be paid out in awards on the recommendation of a Royal Commission. I do not think it would be justifiable to provide further funds for increasing the grants already made on the recommendation of the Royal Commission in the cases referred to in the question.

Sir L. LYLE: I could not hear a word of the answer.

IMPERIAL AIRSHIP SCHEME.

Mr. WELLS: 56.
asked the Prime Minister if he will give the names of the members of the special sub-committee appointed to examine and report on the Imperial airship scheme?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. It is contrary to the established practice to give the names of members of Cabinet Committees.

GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.

Mr. PRINGLE: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the decision to reduce the levy under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, he will give facilities for the discussion of a Motion for the suspension of the Act, as provided in section six.

The PRIME MINISTER: We have no intention of suspending the German Reparation (Recovery) Act; and in these circumstances, and having regard to the amount of urgent business before us, I am not prepared to give facilities for such a Motion as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to give notice that I will put down such a Motion to be taken after 11 o'clock.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has
been drawn to the statement made by the Home Secretary to the effect that he would vote for the abolition of the entertainments duty; and whether this is to be regarded as an indication of the policy of the Government?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The proposals of the Government in regard to taxation in the forthcoming financial year will not be announced prior to the Budget statement, and the Home Secretary made it clear in the statement referred to that he was not speaking on behalf of the Government.

Lord E. PERCY: Then if this is not an indication of the policy of His Majesty's Government, is it an indication of the intention of the Treasury Bench to follow the example of the Liberal party and walk into different lobbies on all the main questions that arise?

Mr. EDWARD WOOD: May we assume, unless Ministers definitely state that they are speaking for the Government, that they are always to be taken as speaking individually?

Mr. SULLIVAN: Was it customary in the last Government for all its Members to speak with one voice?

Mr. PRINGLE: They had no minds.

Commander BELLAIRS: Does it mean that it is going to be left to a free vote of the House?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is not so. I said that we should make no announcement on the question until the Budget statement.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will call together representatives of employers and employed with the object of setting up a national industrial conference with the object of formulating an industrial or labour code which would provide for a fair profit to the employers, security and an adequate standard of life to the workers, and immunity from unnecessary strikes and lock-outs to the general public?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not clear that any useful purpose would be served by such a conference as is suggested, but if there were any general indication by employers' and workers' organisations that a conference should be called, the Government would be prepared to give the suggestion sympathetic consideration.

Lord H. CAVENDSH - BENTINCK: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the present Homo Secretary contributed an important article to the Press advocating such a conference as tending to produce confidence in industry among employers and employed.

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. My reply to that is, that if there was any indication on the part of either that that will be welcome, the Government would give it sympathethic consideration.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that invitations have already been issued by the Minister of Labour to independent gentlemen to attend such a conference, and offer their services in deciding this particular point?

ENFORCED VENTILATION.

Mr. PENNY: 81.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to introduce legislation, on the principle of what is known as enforced ventilation, in industrial disputes similar to that obtaining in Canada, and which has worked most successfully, so that no public service shall be held up until the public has had an opportunity of forming an opinion on the merits of the case?

Mr. SHAW: The main principle of the Canadian Act is contained in Part II of the Industrial Courts Act, under which the Minister of Labour is empowered to appoint a Court of Inquiry for the purpose of providing Parliament and the public with an independent statement of the facts relating to a dispute. As at present advised, I do not consider it necessary to seek the extension of these powers.

PEACEFUL PICKETING.

Mr. PENNY: 82.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the Post Office mail van drivers who, in consequence of the
conduct of a section of the strikers in the recent dock dispute, left their work; and whether, in the general interests of the community, he will take steps to amend the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, in regard to so-called peaceful picketing?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): I have been asked to reply to this question. I am not aware of any incident answering to the hon. Member's description. If he is thinking of the case of the Tilbury mails, my information as to what occurred does not point to any necessity for a change in the law.

Mr. PENNY: Were any definite steps taken to protect that service during the time of the strike?

Mr. DAVIES: All necessary steps were taken to see that the work of the Government was carried on. I ought to add that this is one of the most peaceful industrial disputes which have ever taken place in this country.

Mr. PENNY: I am well aware of the peaceful nature of the industrial dispute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Will the Government take steps to see that these vital services are not interfered with in future?

WHITE LEAD (GENEVA CONVENTION).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Ministry of Labour and the Home Office have now arrived at a decision in regard to the Convention adopted at Geneva, 1921, concerning the prohibition of the use of white lead in interior painting; whether the Government proposes to ratify this Convention; and, if so, when proposals to this end will be submitted?

Mr. SHAW: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who hopes to introduce as soon as possible a Bill designed to give effect to the provisions of this draft Convention. Should this Bill pass into law without amendments contrary to the provisions of the draft Convention, it is proposed to ratify the Convention.

Sir F. HALL: In the event of the Home Secretary not being again returned to this
House in the near future, will the right hon. Gentleman take this matter in hand?

Mr. SHAW: The hon. Gentleman can take it for granted that if the Home Secretary does not come to Parliament somebody will present the Bill.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (WEEKLY BUDGETS).

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 71.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any statistics are in the possession of his Department showing the actual weekly budgets of agricultural workers' wives in English counties?

Mr. SHAW: No budgets showing the expenditure of agricultural workers have been collected by my Department.

Mr. BROWN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable, in view of the present agricultural depression and the uncertainty about the means in agricultural workers' homes, that his Department should take some interest in the villages of the country?

EIGHT-HOUR DAY (WASHINGTON CONVENTION).

Captain TERRELL: 80.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government proposes to introduce legislation to carry out the Washington Convention dealing with the imposition of an eight-hour day; and whether, in that case, the eight-hour day will apply to agricultural workers, seamen, domestic servants and shop assistants?

Mr. SHAW: I propose to introduce legislation at an early date dealing with the Washington Hours Convention. The provisions of the Convention do not apply to agricultural workers, seamen, domestic servants or shop assistants.

Mr. J. MILLS: Will the Minister of Labour consider the advisability of applying this principle to Members of Parliament?

Captain TERRELL: Are we to take it that the Bill will not apply to agricultural workers, seamen and domestic servants?

Mr. SHAW: The Washington Convention specifically excludes certain types of workers. If hon. Gentlemen on the other side wish to include those workers I think they will find sturdy allies on this side of the House.

Mr. B. SMITH: When considering the legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to bring within the purview of the Bill the seamen of this country, having regard to the fact that other countries have already done so and are claiming to get out of it on the ground that we have not followed the Convention?

Mr. SHAW: The presentation of the Convention to this House is looked upon by the present Government as the only thing that can honourably be done to meet our obligations. It is the only thing that I am, for the moment, prepared to do. If any hon. Members wish to add to the Bill, that is for the House itself to decide. My business is to keep our word with the other countries.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Is it not a fact that this Convention was presented to the House in 1921 by the Government of which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was Prime Minister.

Mr. SHAW: I was in the House then, and, as far as I know, the Convention has never been placed before the competent authority for its ratification or otherwise.

Sir G. DOYLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many, if any, foreign Governments have ratified the Convention?

Mr. SHAW: I cannot on the spur of the moment give an answer, but I know that when we came back from Washington, Holland passed a 44-hours law, Switzerland passed a 48-hours Bill, France passed a 48-hours Bill, and even Germany, by decree, instituted a 44-hours Bill.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, during the last meeting at Geneva, the German workers' representative said that they refused to be bound by this matter, and that they were going to work nine and possibly ten hours a day?

Mr. SHAW: I know that in 1920, when the delegates to Washington returned, our Government never put the Convention before this House. I know that the Germans did by law introduce a week of less than 48 hours. I know also that 1923 is not 1920, when we ought to have kept our word.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the German decree enforcing that has now been rescinded, and that they are at present working nine and ten hours a day?

Mr. SHAW: I do not deny that certain steps are being taken in Germany. I know the facts, but what is taking place in Germany cannot absolve us from keeping our word.

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot carry this matter any further to-day.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ENABLING) BILL.

Mr. BAKER: 87.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Government will give facilities for the Local Authorities (Enabling) Bill standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Hackney?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. A. Greenwood): My right hon. Friend is not in a position to make a statement on this matter in anticipation of the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. I understand that the Bill has not yet been printed.

SLAUGHTERING OF ANIMALS.

Sir K. WOOD: 88.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to take steps in connection with the slaughtering of animals to ensure that the provisions of Clause 9b of the Model Bye-laws issued by the Local Government Board in 1915 shall be enforced by local authorities?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 18th instant to the hon. Member for Acton.

NATIONAL GUILD BUILDING SOCIETY.

Sir K. WOOD: 89.
asked the Minister of Health whether any housing contracts have been entrusted to the National Guild Building Society, Limited?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have no knowledge of any housing contracts having been entrusted to the society in question.

SMALL-POX.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 90.
asked the Minister of Health the number of cases of small-pox notified on an average for the years 1911 to 1920 and, respectively, in each of the last three years and this year up to date; and the proportion of infant or primary vaccinations to births in each corresponding period, this year excepted?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The average number of cases of small-pox notified during the years 1911 to 1920 (civilians only) was 146.3 per year. The numbers of cases notified since 1920 have been as follow:—

In the year




1921
…
315


1922
…
973


1923
…
2486*


1924 (up to 9th February)
…
478*


* These figures are provisional.

The proportion of children born during the years 1911 to 1920 who were vaccinated was 45.0 per cent. For 1921 the proportion was 38.3 per cent. The figures for 1922 and 1923 are not yet available.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury desires to ask a question of the Prime Minister about the answering of questions in this House.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question with regard to procedure. I understood, when he made his statement the other day—and I think that many hon. Members understood the same thing—that it was his intention to be here on Mondays and Wednesdays in order to reply as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. My
hon. Friend the Under-Secretary says that we were mistaken in that, and that the right hon. Gentleman intended to be here only on Mondays to answer these questions. I would like to ask him whether that is so, and, if so, whether he could not arrange that he should answer Foreign Office questions on the day when those questions come first on the Paper, which is Wednesday, as it always has been, and would it be possible for him to answer questions here on Wednesday as Foreign Secretary or have the Foreign Office questions put first on the Paper on Monday?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should be very glad to meet the convenience of the House in this respect. What I did say was that I should answer questions on Monday as Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, as Foreign Office questions which, if they do not come first, come second, are always taken on Monday, and that then on Wednesday I could answer questions as Prime Minister. If the House thinks it desirable that I should also take Foreign Office questions on Wednesday, I will consider it, but I do not think it necessary. I would be very glad to have a conversation with my right hon. Friend if he feels any difficulty on the point.

Mr. McNEILL: Speaking for myself, and I believe also for the House, I have no wish to impose any additional burden on the right hon. Gentleman. If, as he says, these questions on Monday come second, and though they may be numerous, they can be all reached on Monday, I do not know that it matters very much, but the greater number of questions to the Foreign Office has usually been put down for Wednesday, and we have been continuing to put them down for Wednesday in the belief that the right hon. Gentleman will answer them.

The PRIME MINISTER: Great inconvenience arises if I take up practically the whole of Question Time on Monday. Hitherto I think the Foreign Office questions have been taken one day a week—on Monday. Therefore, if I take Foreign Office questions on Monday, I assume that I am not breaking in on the time of Members who are interested in other Departments. I think that it would be unfair to them to take up an extraordinary amount of Question Time on two days of the week. I have to apologise
for the amount of time which I have taken up this morning as it is.

Viscount WOLMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Monday is the only day at present on which we get oral replies from the Minister of Agriculture, so that if there is a very large number of questions addressed to the Prime Minister as Foreign Secretary on Monday, questions addressed to the Minister of Agriculture can hardly be reached.

The PRIME MINISTER: That is so, and I think that it is a subject for arrangement. It might be possible that I should not take the Foreign Office questions on Monday, but take questions as Prime Minister, and then take Foreign Office questions on Wednesday. I will do everything possible to meet the convenience of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I suggest that that is contrary to the convenience of those of us who are interested in matters of public health. It is only to-day that we have been so fortunate as to get three questions answered by the Minister of Health. Wednesday is the only day on which we get questions addressed to the Minister of Health, and this is the first day this Session on which the Minister of Health has reached them.

Mr. CLIMIE: If the under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was good enough to answer questions in the last Parliament, why cannot the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs answer such questions now?

TREATY OF VERSAILLES.

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON'S SPEECH.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the statement made by the Home Secretary on the 23rd February that the Treaty of Versailles was a breach of the pre-Armistice agreement, on the strength of which Germany grounded her arms, is based upon documentary evidence in the possession of the Government; whether it is the intention of the Government, as indicated by the Home Secretary, to take steps to secure the revision of the Treaty through the medium of a world conference; if he will state what are the respects in which the Government propose
to press for a modification of the territorial aspects of the Treaty; and whether such territorial adjustments will cover proposals for the return to Germany of any of her former Colonial possessions?

Mr. R. McNEILL: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet ascertained from the Home Secretary whether the latter was correctly reported to have declared at Burnley that revision of the Treaty of Versailles is essential both in its economic and its territorial aspects; if he will say, in view of the fact that the Home Secretary's statement purported to be an authoritative announcement of the policy of His Majesty's Government, whether it is the intention of the Government to give effect to such policy; in what respects the Government consider that the Treaty of Versailles requires revision in its territorial aspect; whether any and which of the Allied Governments have been consulted or officially informed of the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter; and what steps have been taken or are in contemplation for bringing about revision of the Treaty?

Mr. PONSONBY: These questions will be answered by the Prime Minister in replying to questions 49 and 54.

Sir F. HALL: Do I understand that the Prime Minister will be here to answer these questions personally? Shall I receive an answer to my question? [HON. MEMBERS: "Wait and see!"]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Is it not an infringement of the rights of hon. Members for a Minister to say that questions are put off till later, when they may not be reached?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me his assistance, we shall be assured of reaching question 49.

Sir F. HALL: I beg to suggest that the hon. Member who put down question No. 8 is entitled to a reply from the Minister, and that it is not fair or equitable to be put off in this manner by the Under-Secretary in connection with two or three other questions. This is a categorical question, and I suggest I am entitled to a categorical reply.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet is to have a reply from the superior of the Under-Secretary.

Sir F. HALL: But it will be en bloc.

Mr. McNEILL: Did not the Prime Minister say a little while ago that it was his intention to be here on Mondays and Wednesdays to answer questions as Foreign Secretary as well as Prime Minister? It will be for the convenience of the House if we can be told whether that custom is now going to be followed, because it makes a difference in putting down questions whether they are addressed to the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister?

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will address that question to the Prime Minister at the end of questions to-day, and he will then doubtless get a reply.

Mr. PONSONBY: May I explain that the Prime Minister is here on Mondays to answer questions as Foreign Secretary, and on Mondays and Wednesdays to answer questions as Prime Minister? I thought it would be better for the two hon. Members to get their answers from the Prime Minister himself instead of from me.

Mr. McNEILL: Is there any intention to make any alteration in the rule hitherto prevailing, that the Foreign Office questions should come first on Wednesdays, because, obviously, it is important that they should come first, so that they may be answered, if possible, by the Foreign Minister himself?

Captain BENN: Is there any precedent for a Minister to say that a question put to him will be answered later? So far as I am aware there is no such precedent.

Mr. SPEAKER: Oh, yes, I have often heard Ministers say that.

Sir F. HALL: On this point and as to the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]—I have no desire to waste time, but I am under the orders of Mr. Speaker, and he will call mo to order if need be. I venture to suggest that the Prime Minister has indicated that he will be here to answer his questions as Foreign Secretary also on Wednesdays. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: If a question be put down at the end of questions, the matter can then be made quite clear.

Sir LEONARD LYLE: 49.
later asked the prime Minister whether the Government
proposes to recommend to the League of Nations the revision of the existing peace treaties; and, if not, whether he intends to try to achieve this result by any other means?

Mr. REMER: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department's statement at the Burnley bye-election, that the Treaty of Versailles must be revised, is the considered policy of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer which I gave on Monday last in reply to a private notice question by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an exhaustive search through all his utterances since he became Prime Minister shows that he has never uttered a syllable with regard to the revision of the Treaty, and, in view of the alarm which has been caused on both sides of the Channel by the Home Secretary's speech, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, in the interests of straightforward dealing, which he desires, it is incumbent upon him to make his position absolutely clear on this matter without further delay?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am surprised that there should be any ambiguity about my position. I stated, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, that what I had said I had said, and that the Government was responsible for what I had said, and for nothing more.

Mr. McNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that on this point he has said nothing?

The PRIME MINISTER: And, therefore, the Government propose to do nothing.

Sir L. LYLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, while he may have said the same thing, other Members of the Government have said all sorts of things? We are only asking for a definite statement on the part of the Government as to what the Government policy is.

Sir F. HALL: I have asked a specific question, whether the statement made by
the Home Secretary is based upon documentary evidence in possession of the Government, and the reply that the right hon. Gentleman gave the other day does not deal with that point at all. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the difficulty in which this House and the country are placed if we are going to have statements made by Ministers off their own bat without consulting the Prime Minister on the subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree. I have made a statement about the Government's foreign policy. That is the Government's foreign policy, and I am glad to say foreign Governments quite understand that that is so.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: In all the Home Secretary's speeches in the Burnley division, has he made it perfectly clear that he was speaking as a private individual and not as Home Secretary?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Has the right hon. Gentleman ascertained whether the Press reports of the Home Secretary's speech are correct or incorrect?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I have not.

Sir L. LYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a definite statement that statements made by the other Ministers are not to be taken as representing the views of the Government?

Mr. PRINGLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to restrain the irresponsibility of his colleagues, particularly in view of the injurious effect of such speeches in other countries?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think we cannot pursue the matter further.

Mr. McNEILL: I beg to give notice that, at the end of Questions, I propose to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

At the end of Questions,

Mr. McNEILL: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the contradictory statements made by Ministers of the Crown in relation to foreign policy, and the failure of the Government to take adequate steps
to remove from the public mind of this and allied countries the impression created by a speech of the Home Secretary that the policy of His Majesty's Government is to propose revision of the Treaty of Versailles."

Mr. SPEAKER: I had a little doubt as to the earlier part of the Motion of the right hon. Member, but I think he lays the stress on the effect which he says has been created in other countries, and I propose, therefore, to put the question to the House.

The PRIME MINISTER: May I raise a point of Order? May I ask you whether you do not take the view that the statement I have made, that the Government policy is what I have said, is not sufficient for the purpose, and whether the mere repetition of that, which is the only thing that can be given in the public interest at the moment, is going to help the House out of any difficulty in which it is placed?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): On another aspect of the point of Order, may I ask whether it is competent for a Member to claim to move the Adjournment on a statement made outside this House, for which, it has been clearly stated, the Government is in no way responsible?

Mr. SPEAKER: No; I do not think the statement made outside the House is the claim which is put before the House. The claim is that it was not made clear at Question Time to-day. It is only on this ground that I propose to put the matter to the House.

Captain BENN: Have you, Sir, not constantly ruled that these Motions are not to be admitted unless the matter is definite and urgent? I submit that this Motion fails on those grounds.

Mr. POTTS: Is not this matter raised at the moment in the interests of furthering a political campaign?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not for me to enter into hon. Members' motives.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Has it not often been ruled by your predecessor, if not by yourself, that a Motion for Adjournment is not valid unless attention has been called to the matter at the earliest possible moment? Seeing that this speech was
made last Saturday, and reported in the newspapers on the Sunday, three or four days have elapsed, and questions have been put on it during the last three or four days. Therefore I submit that on the point of precedent the Motion is not valid.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not the fact that it is only because such great attention has been paid to the speech of the Home Secretary by the French and Italian Press that the matter has become really of international importance, and that the attitude of the Government to the Treaty of Versailles here and now should be made clear?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the ground on which I have decided to put the Question. On the question of urgency, I take it that the point is that the right hon. Gentleman claims that he did not get clear answers to his questions. It is on that ground alone that I think the right hon. Member is entitled to ask leave to move the Adjournment.

The pleasure of the House having been signified,

The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter-past Eight this evening.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask what business it is proposed to take to-morrow?

Mr. CLYNES: If the Diseases of Animals Bill secures a Third Reading today, we propose to take business in the following order to-morrow: Supply, Committee; Supplementary Estimates, Class II, Vote 14; Ways and Means, Committee, Resolution; Supply, Committee, Supplementary Estimates, in the order in which they appear on the Paper. The effect of this is to raise the Ministry of Agriculture Estimate to the top of the list, in order to secure approval of that Estimate at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. J. HOPE: What Resolution does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take in Committee of Ways and Means?

Mr. CLYNES: I cannot say at the moment.

Sir K. WOOD: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to resume the Debate on the Motion regarding Poplar?

NOTICES OF MOTION.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the Hours of Sittings of this House, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. R. Morrison.]

DEATH DUTIES.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the Incidence of the Death Duties, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir R. Aske.]

POLICE PENSIONERS (WIDOWS).

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the position of the Widows of Police Pensioners before September, 1918, and the limitations that were imposed upon these pensioners by the Police Pensions Act of 1921, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir J. Remnant.]

ARMY RANKER OFFICERS (PENSIONS).

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the inequitable Treatment of Army Pensioner Ranker Officers, and to move a Resolution.—[Major Barnett.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL,

"to amend enactments relating to Merchant Shipping, and to make further provision with respect thereto, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. SEXTON; supported by Mr. Tillett, Mr. Wignall, Mr. Benjamin Smith, and Mr. Short; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 12th March, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]

Orders of the Day — DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

4.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: This Bill presupposes the policy of slaughter and the continuance of that policy for some considerable time. Though, personally, I agree in principle with the policy of slaughter, I do so only on the assumption that it is carried out under conditions which make it both effective and safe. One of the more recent victims of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease on my own farm, I have had some experience, and I hope that I may be able to make certain suggestions which may be of some use in deciding whether the policy, as at present carried out, is effective, efficient, and safe. There can be no doubt that the methods which have been adopted hitherto, and for which compensation is to be given, have, in certain districts, led to a distinct increase of infection. In the earlier stages, before the present methods were understood and before the arrangements could be made, there was a good deal which required considerable remedy. I do not want to minimise the great difficulty with which the Ministry are faced. Far be it through me to make their task difficult. I only want to help them.
There is no doubt that many years ago, when foot-and-mouth disease existed in the country, it did not spread so quickly as, or flare up in the different districts with the same rapidity that it has done during the past year. Look at what happens. When a case occurs on an ordinary farm, there is on that farm a very small collection of people, comprising the farmer himself, his family, and the comparatively few people who are employed on the farm. The moment a case occurs—it cannot very well be avoided—a crowd is collected. You get a lot of people arriving to deal with the outbreak. First of all, you get the inspectors of the Ministry. Then you get veterinary surgeons, and we all know that in the past the carelessness of some of the
veterinary surgeons has been the cause of carrying infection from one area to another. You get, of course, the butchers if you carry out the policy of slaughter, and you get a large amount of labour to carry out the subsidiary operations. In addition, you get the village constable or constables to see that no unauthorised persons go on the premises, and they themselves may be the method of carrying infection. There is a considerable process which has to be gone through when the animals are slaughtered. The carcases of those not affected have to be dressed. There is the burning and burying of the others, and the processes of disposal have to be put into operation. That all means, in a great many cases, that there must be a large importation of casual labour. The persons employed in these operations are disinfected as best they can be, and then they are allowed to go home. All that is, to a certain extent, inevitable.
I want to know whether the system of disinfection is really satisfactory to the Ministry, and is one which cannot be improved. I am glad to find that in recent outbreaks the use of overalls by those, employed in these operations has been insisted on, and that overalls are now provided. In the early days that was not done. The men engaged put their hands, their overalls and all they used in some disinfecting mixture. That is a very primitive and incomplete method of disinfection. The ordinary casual labourer is not a very careful man, or at all intelligent in the use of disinfectants, and the overalls may come into contact with a man's clothes when he is getting out of them and into his own clothes. A certain amount of infection may in that way attach to a man who has been wearing the overalls. It is perfectly evident, therefore, that the mere process of disinfecting is not satisfactory or really thoroughly efficient. That leads to the point whether some better method cannot be found by employing men over whom the Ministry has more control, and who can be more thoroughly and completely disinfected. The casual labourer is not a man who thoroughly understands what disinfection means, or who understands the complexity of the infection, or the extraordinary rapidity with which it can be conveyed. These men go away from their work with their clothing very likely infected, and
they mix with the general community. You cannot prevent them mixing with other farm labourers, and possibly spreading the disease. Some of these casual labourers—I know of one or two cases—are sportmen, and it is their habit to go about the country districts, often with doge, and move among the stock on the various farms. That is a very possible means of infection.
I want to ask whether it is not possible—I know it is not in every case—to employ disciplined men from depots, or barracks, or from wherever they can be found. There, are some districts where that would be quite impossible, but there are others where it would be possible. I asked the question about this yesterday, and the reply was that there were very few Army butchers, and that consequently the number available would be very few. I quite agree that that is an answer with regard to butchers, but I do ask wherever it is possible that disciplined men, whose employment can be regulated and on whom an adequate and complete system of disinfection can be imposed, should be used. Disinfection by the mere application of a liquid disinfectant cannot be complete. There must be a complete system of fumigation before the risk of carrying infection can be got rid of. I do not want to minimise the difficulties of the Ministry. I know that it is not easy to choose the men in their employ, but I do suggest that they ought to exercise the greatest care in selecting those whom they employ in the slaughtering operations. I do not think that enough care has been shown in the past, and this is a point to which attention should be given.
We all admit that the system of slaughter is the most primitive possible. The cost to the country has to be considered. The country loses this enormous sum of money which is paid in compensation, but it loses also the value of the stock which has to be slaughtered. There is further a great deal of incidental loss falling on those on whose farms outbreaks occur, and for which no compensation is given. In addition, there is the loss to the labourers of their employment. I see it was suggested in one of the previous Debates that some of the compensation might be paid to the labourers. One would be very glad if that were possible, but it is absolutely impossible, because obviously the compensation then would be inadequate for the
re-stocking of the farms, and, if the farmer is not going to be able to re-stock his farm, he is not going to be able to employ the labourers in future. I am ready to accept the policy of slaughter so long as I am assured that it is regarded as only a temporary and primitive method on which we are hoping to improve.
I welcome the announcement which has been made, that there is going to be some better system of research. It is only on the basis that there is going to be research that slaughter can be considered for a time, and until that research shows something better. There, has been, for a long time, a rather unfortunate and detached attitude on the part of the Ministry towards the Medical Research Council. I hope that this announcement of a really scientific investigation means that that attitude is going to cease. We want some system of general research. It cannot be too often said that the science of pathology is one which cannot be segregated. The organisms which affect animals and human beings are largely related, and the research which applies to the one may well apply to the other. Research, therefore, applying to one section and not applying to the other is a waste of energy and of time. In the past there has been on the part of the Ministry far too much trying to keep the doctors and the Medical Research Council out of it, and far too much desire to run their own show. I hope that the announcement made means that that is going to come to an end. The research hitherto carried out has been inadequate, and has certainly been very unsuccessful. The method of having an isolated farm on which to carry out your research, or a ship in which, as the House knows, research has been hitherto carried out, merely means that you are creating a new centre of infection. There has been nothing to prove that in this disease infection cannot be carried by the wind. It is quite clear that if you moor a ship within a few miles of the land and if this infection is wind-borne, you are simply creating a new centre of infection and thereby doing more harm than good. If, in addition, you only allow a short time to elapse and then ask those who are carrying out the investigation—as has been done in the past—whether definite results can be promised at the end of a
certain limited time, then it is perfectly obvious you are not treating the problem as seriously as it ought to be treated.
What is required is a full, complete and comprehensive investigation, and such an investigation will have to last for a considerable number of years. In dealing with a problem like this you cannot expect immediate results. Furthermore, why is it necessary to have an isolated farm or a ship for these experiments? Why should not the investigation take place in London? There are no cattle kept in London; the most infectious diseases are investigated here, and the investigations are carried out with perfect safety and under the best possible conditions, I suggest that system would be much more satisfactory than the system which has obtained hitherto. I do not desire, however, to raise any difficulties, and I am sure we all wish the Ministry success in their task. It is a very unsatisfactory position. I sat on a Committee dealing with this particular disease fifteen or sixteen years ago, and I do not believe we know any more about the origin and cause of the disease now than we did then. At that Committee we had all the most eminent officials of the Department before us and we collected evidence from every other source of information which we could find, but nothing material resulted and no action was taken. Since that time there has been no real organised definite attempt at research work which can be called satisfactory. Therefore, I welcome the proposal of the Minister to set up a Committee of investigation, and I think the House would be well advised to pass this Bill, but only on the assumption that this is not the last word on the subject and that the Government really mean to press—as I think previous Governments ought to have pressed—the research question, so that in a very short time we may hope for, at any rate, some result and so that we may be able to depart from the very primitive and unfortunate method of slaughter, which at present is the only weapon we have against the disease, and adopt some more scientific and more effective means.

Major STEEL: The Minister of Agriculture a few days ago said this outbreak was now well in hand and under his control. I notice in to-day's newspapers that twenty fresh cases were confirmed
yesterday, and that out of these twenty fresh cases three are from a new centre somewhere in Lancashire. It seems to me that not even the most optimistic person can say we are within sight of the end of this terrible outbreak. The cost of this outbreak is very great not only to the flocks and herds of this country—already we have slaughtered over 90,000 head of cattle, 30,000 head of sheep and 40,000 head of pigs—and to a very large number of individual farmers, but the cost in the payment of compensation is a very heavy burden upon the taxpayers of the country, and it seems to me it is the duty of all who represent agricultural constituencies to do our very-best to satisfy ourselves that every possible measure is being taken by the Ministry to bring the outbreak to an end as speedily as possible. I realise the difficulties of the Ministry; I know how difficult it must be to face an outbreak such as this with a limited staff, and I have often wondered how the limited staff has been able to cope with the enormous additional work entailed by the outbreak. All the same, the slaughter policy is very expensive to the country and we must see that coupled with the slaughter policy every possible additional effort is made to end the outbreak.
With that object in view, I ask the Minister's attention to certain points to which the farming community might be asked to give special consideration. One of these points has already been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barkston Ash (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox), and in regard to it I ask, have steps been taken to advise all farmers in the infected areas to ensure as far as possible that stockmen and cattlemen have their clothes, especially their boots, disinfected after coming in contact with infected animals? It seems to me there is absolutely no doubt that this disease is very often spread by the employ és themselves, who carry it upon their clothes and boots, and every means should be adopted to urge upon farmers the necessity that those who come in contact with infected animals should have their clothing disinfected as speedily as possible. With regard to the destruction of empty sacks, I have no doubt the disease is often spread by empty sacks taken away from infected areas. Has the Ministry considered the compulsory destruction of all empty sacks from
infected areas? It would mean additional compensation, but that would be a small matter if, in fact, the disease is being carried from one farm to another, even on some occasions, by means of these sacks. Has the Minister taken step to approach the railway companies with a view to getting them to disinfect and clean out the cattle trucks far more thoroughly than they are in the habit of doing in ordinary times?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have to remind the hon. and gallant Member and the House that, on the Third Reading of a Bill, the discussion is confined to the contents of the Bill, and is not of the same width as the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not think the powers conferred by this Bill include the matters just referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, namely, the destruction of sacks and the cleaning of the railway trucks.

Viscount WOLMER: On that point of Order. Is not this a Bill giving increased financial powers to the Ministry of Agriculture for coping with this disease, and are we not at liberty to discuss the purposes to which this money is to be applied by the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. SPEAKER: Only the purposes to which it can be applied, and I do not think either of these two particular purposes are purposes to which this money can be applied.

Viscount WOLMER: Am I not right in believing that the money can be applied in burning the farmers' property, and compensating them for it?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think not. This Bill merely removes certain limitations in the previous Act with regard to compensation for the slaughter of cattle.

Viscount WOLMER: If that be the case, may I ask the Minister to tell us whether the Ministry is not now actually paying money for these purposes?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think not under the Act. Under their other powers, if the money has been provided for in the Estimates, it may be so.

Major STEEL: In any case I am quite sure the Ministry will do everything possible to bring the outbreak to an end as quickly as possible and I hope they will take into account the points I have made. We all welcome the Committee to deal
with research. If far more money and attention had been devoted to research in the past we should not be faced with our present difficulties. There are many questions into which a research committee can go, and one matter of interest has been brought to my notice by a prominent agriculturist in my constituency. That is as to there being a special difficulty in diagnosing foot-and-mouth disease in the case of sheep. It seems to be much more difficult to diagnose the disease in sheep than in cattle, and my informant, who has very wide experience, suggests that there are many occasions on which farmers allow sheep affected with foot-and-mouth disease to go about for several days after contracting the disease, in the belief that the animals have only got foot-rot. I do not know whether that can be anything more than supposition, but it would be a good thing if the Ministry were to circulate a statement of the exact symptoms of foot-and-mouth disease in the case of sheep, so that farmers can be absolutely certain when disease occurs, whether it is foot-and-mouth disease or merely foot-rot, and if it should be the former, the farmer will be able, at once, to give notice of it. We all hope that the Committee's investigations will enable us to find the origin of this great disease and to find means of coping in a more efficient way with future outbreaks.

Mr. GEORGE EDWARDS: I wish to congratulate the Ministry on the promptitude which has been shown in dealing with this matter. This terrible plague which has come upon the agricultural industry has been the cause of a great deal of distress and difficulty. I am pleased that the Ministry have indicated in this Bill their intention of proceeding with the policy of slaughter. For a very long time I had an open mind on this method of dealing with the plague. I happened to be on the Advisory Committee to the Ministry of Agriculture set up by the late Government, and I believe the late Government did their very best to grapple with this disease, but the rapid spread of the disease and the wide area which it covered got beyond the limits of the staff at their disposal and they were unable to grapple with it thoroughly, and I think that that is why there have been so many hardships inflicted on the
industry as a result of this outbreak. I am also glad that they intend to devote a good deal of the money to scientific research. I hold the view that it is far better to spend money to prevent than to kill, and I hope that in setting up this Committee to consider the question of scientific research they will seek the advice of the very best medical experts that can be found, so that if possible in the near future some method may be found to prevent an occurrence of this kind.
I hope, too, that they will continue to compensate the farmers and to devote even more money than at present to that purpose. We may be unable to compensate fully the man who grazes cattle and deals with his fat stock, but in regard to the man who has a dairy herd, who has devoted a great deal of time and money and labour to obtaining for himself the very best milking herd, and has taken years to get a record of from 350 gallons to almost 1,000 gallons, in that case it is absolutely impossible to compensate him for his loss. You can give him the value of his cows, but you cannot pay him for the great financial loss caused by the loss of his goodwill and his business. I would like to see even more money, if possible, spent in that direction. The Minister on the last occasion said something about insurance, but I hope he will not entertain it, because the farmer ought to, and docs, insure against normal and natural losses, but here you have an epidemic for which the agriculturist is not responsible and over which he has no control, and therefore, as it is a national question, the Imperial Parliament ought to find the money, without any further burden on the industry in relation to an epidemic like this.
Taking the Bill as a whole, I hope it will be passed, and I want to congratulate the Ministry upon their efforts in dealing with this terrible epidemic, from which I hope the country will soon be clear. Unfortunately, however, it seems to be rapidly spreading, and only by my post this morning I heard from a number of farmers in Norfolk, saying that they had another outbreak, which is very serious. I therefore hope steps will be taken, both by scientific research and the very best
method by slaughter, to stamp out this disease, and that the farmers and the agricultural industry as a whole may soon be relieved from this terrible burden.

Mr. EDMUND TURTON: I have no desire to delay the Third Reading of the Bill, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will loyally obey the ruling that you have given and will not, I hope, transgress what you told the House was the proper order of debate on the Third Reading. Certainly I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. G. Edwards) into the question of isolation against slaughter, but I most cordially agree with him that no amount of compensation can recompense any of our breeders, whether they breed Lincolns, shorthorns, or Friesians, if they have the misfortune to have their herds attacked by this disease.
The first point I wish to bring forward is the question of the £250,000 which are to be taken from the Local Taxation Account. Speaking as the chairman of the parliamentary committee of the County Councils' Association, I feel that we cannot in any way controvert the statement that was made at the time when the Money Resolution was brought in, and I cannot, on behalf of the Association, raise any objection whatever to that amount being taken from the Fund. I am glad to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his place. He is commencing in his office, and I trust that he will not be too fond of raiding that Fund at the expense of the ratepayers in the district. It is a very easy Fund for Financial Secretaries and Chancellors of the Exchequer to raid. There have been far too many calls upon that Fund in the past, and I hope that, whether it be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who replies on this Debate, we may have an assurance that this sum of £250,000 is not to be a stereotyped or stabilised sum. I think we have a right to ask, on behalf of the county councils, an assurance from the Government that this sum of a quarter of a million is to be treated as for the present financial year only and is not to be taken in other years. I think, in the words of the right hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland), who, I am sure, at the present moment has the deepest sympathy from every
Member of the House in the calamity that has happened to him, we have a right to insist in this matter that the House shall not lose control. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to give us an assurance that the amount to be taken from this fund is not to be a stereotyped or stabilised amount.
The other point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture—I regret that the Minister is not in his place—will not, I hope, transgress your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I want to ask the Government whether they cannot give more consideration to the question of freeing the infected areas without always looking upon the number of days, whatever that may be. The point I want to put forward is this, and it happened only last week: I am sure every member of the Government will agree with me when I say that the spring sales of shorthorns are of the greatest benefit to the farmers of the country, because they are able to buy at these sales the very best strains of blood at, I am sorry to say, a totally inadequate price. I happen to be a shorthorn breeder, and I can only say that the farmers of the district are able to get at an extremely reasonable price the best strains of blood. What happened at Penrith last week? There had been, unfortunately, an outbreak within the area of certain farms which send stock to the Penrith sale. The time had elapsed within one day of when that area was going to be declared no longer infected, and actually two of the principal breeders who had entered stock for the Penrith sale received notice on the night of the first day of the sale. Their stock had been entered; it could not be removed; it was impossible to take it; and there was no opportunity for intending purchasers to see it.
I would ask my hon. Friend to consider whether the Ministry cannot act with a little more freedom in this matter, having regard to these sales that are taking place. It do not want it to happen again. I am not here merely as a captious critic in regard to what happened at Penrith, but I want the Ministry to recognise that there is a very important sale in this country coming off the week after next, at York, under the auspices of the Yorkshire Shorthorn Society, whose shows and sales are unequalled by any other sales in the
country, not even excepting [...] I ask my hon. Friend, to cons[...] there are entries from districts w[...] day are not free, whether, on application, they will consider whether it is safe for the entries to be sent to York. I am speaking, perhaps, on rather personal grounds, as I have entries for York myself. At the present moment my herd is in an infected area, while immediately over the fence my tenants are free. Whether we shall be free by Wednesday week is a matter entirely for the Minister to say, but I suggest that in cases where we have these sales which are now beginning, and which I am sure my hon. Friend will admit are of the greatest value to the agricultural community, some discretion should be used in this matter.
I am not pleading for one moment that any risk should be run—far from it. On the contrary, there is nobody who has lived in greater terror than I have all these months for fear of my herd being infected. I do not ask him to run any risk, but if there is a rule of thumb, a red-tape system, that it must be 28 days, I would ask him that we may be allowed to send an application into the Ministry of Agriculture asking—and we will be quite content with the decision given—whether in the circumstances the particular area where the stock has been entered for sale could not be freed. If my hon. Friend will give me that assurance when he comes to reply, I shall be very grateful, and I hope I have not raised anything that is outside the purview of this Bill on Third Reading.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I join in the congratulations given to the Ministry on the passing of this Bill, and I sincerely hope it will be of practical advantage to our agricultural industry. I do not rise to make a speech. The few words which I propose to address to the House are in the nature of a personal explanation. In the course of the Debate the other day in Committee, two speeches were delivered, one by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. F. Martin) and the other by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Climie). My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen, as the House will recollect, was pleading for compensation for the destruction of certain cattle in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs followed him,
and bluntly told the Minister of Agriculture that he thought no such compensation should be paid, and the reason which he gave for his statement was that these cattle were slaughtered two months after they were completely healed. I followed, in the course of the Debate, and, my information being the same as that of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, I ventured to contradict the statement which my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs had made to the Committee. Since then, I have had the advantage of conversation with the hon. Member, and he has shown me information which justified the statement which he then made. In view of that fact, I feel bound, at the first available opportunity, to stand and express my regret to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs.

Major WHELER: I would like to join in the congratulations which have been offered to the Government on the passing of this Bill. I am sure the agricultural community will welcome the Bill, and as far as we, on this side, are concerned, whatever money is wanted in future to help make good the losses which the farmers are suffering owing to this terrible scourge will be willingly voted from this side. I want to ask a few questions bearing on the situation to-day, with a view to eliciting information, which, I hope, will minimise to some extent the feeling which people have as regards this Bill, and as regards the scourge itself and the dangers we are in, and which will also, perhaps, reduce the expenditure. Bearing in mind that we are told in the papers to-day there are twenty outbreaks notified, and that amongst those outbreaks there is a new area in Lancashire, we would like to know whether, in the case of Lancashire or elsewhere, where new outbreaks have occurred, the Ministry have information which leads them confidently to say how the outbreaks arose. It is most extraordinary how some outbreaks have arisen, but there are other cases in which, although they may appear isolated, cattle have been removed or something of that sort has occurred to furnish an explanation. Such explanations are very valuable to the agricultural industry as a whole, because many of these cases have occurred from carelessness, or something of that sort. There is some consolation in knowing that the
cause of the infection has been traced. On the other hand, there are some cases where, so far as I know, no explanation can be given of the outbreaks, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, whether he has any information in his Department to show how the outbreaks which have occurred in Lancashire, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire have come about. If we could get that information, it would, at any rate, help to assuage the alarm which is inclined to be felt from the fact, already mentioned in this Debate, that there seems to be no real knowledge as to the germ, how it gets about the country, and what is the cause of this very serious epidemic. If on this point something can be said, I am certain it will be a great help to us.
The next point is with reference to the re-stocking of farms, because there again we might be able to save expense. I believe there is a case near Doncaster now, and there are several other cases, where foot-and-mouth disease has broken out for the second time on the same farm. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox) has been dealing with this matter, but we would like to know in the case of a second outbreak on a farm, what was the actual period between the first and second outbreaks, and whether, before re-stocking was permitted, the Ministry were absolutely satisfied, so far as they could be, that every reasonable precaution had been taken. Nobody wants to blame any member of the staff for carelessness in any way, but when we do find these outbreaks occurring a second time, it means a very serious state of affairs. It means a second expenditure on the same unit, and we do want to be assured in these cases—there are not many—that every precaution has been taken, and a really thorough investigation made of the farm before any re-stocking is allowed. One fully realises the anxiety of a farmer to get stock back on his farm, because of the loss that must ensue owing to the derelict state of the farm, but, in the general interest of agriculture as a whole, we would like to be clearly assured on this point as to the re-stocking of farms, especially in cases where infection has broken out a second time.
With reference to the point we hear still raised, that Irish cattle have got something
to do with this, that infection does in some cases come from Ireland, what I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman is, whether, as he undoubtedly has to get information from officials on the other side, there is any possibility of getting any further information as to whether foot-and-mouth disease does exist in Ireland? I see mentioned in the papers again to-day reference to Irish cattle that were landed at Bristol. I presume they had a clean bill of health there, but when they got to Nottingham, these cattle developed the disease. I do not know whether there is any certain information as to the length of time the germ takes to make itself known, if I may use that expression, but that is the point about which we should like information. We remember that at Newcastle a few years ago, questions were raised as to cattle coming from Ireland, and whether some further investigation ought not to have been made in the matter. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to satisfy us that every part of Ireland is free from this disease at the present time. I have one more question to raise. If there are to be further Members appointed on the Committee, I do hope there will be appointed a veterinary surgeon of great experience, because that type of man would be of great advantage to the Committee. If the Parliamentary Secretary could give us some information on these points, which I have only raised so as to put as much confidence as possible in our agricultural community, I am sure it will help the industry.

Mr. CLAYTON: I have listened to the Debate on this Bill with great interest, but I have heard very little reference to a subject which, I consider, of very great importance, namely, the protecting of healthy cattle by careful methods of disinfection. I myself am under a certain disadvantage in raising this question, because I am associated with a firm manufacturing a certain disinfectant. For that reason, I do not propose to compare the relative values of different disinfectants, but to treat the matter from the general point of view. I am in no way opposed to the policy of the Ministry with regard to slaughter, but I should like to add to that policy a policy of protecting cattle from infection by disinfecting the farms that adjoin farms on which there have been outbreaks. I speak from considerable personal experience
in this matter, because I have personal knowledge of a matter of 500 farms, all of them situated in districts where there are very serious outbreaks—Cheshire, Staffordshire, the neighbourhood of Preston, Northumberland and Durham—and these 500 farms, disinfected carefully, have, I am glad to say, kept free from the disease altogether, with the exception of two, and, in the case of these two, the regulations laid down were not carried out. They used disinfectants, but not according to the regulations. The others, following our instructions, are at present immune. I therefore consider it is worth the while of the Ministry to follow up very carefully the question of disinfecting farms adjoining those on which there are outbreaks, with a view to stopping, the spread of the contagion.
There is another matter which, I think, has been overlooked. Take the case, of a farm where there has been infection, and the cattle have been slaughtered. After the cattle have been slaughtered, the officials of the Ministry very carefully disinfect that farm. The result is that any rats on that farm leave, and pass to the nearest available farm in the district. If that farm has not been using disinfectants, the rats lodge there, carrying the infection with them. I should like the Ministry to have the power to utilise a portion of this grant that they have to help the farmers in adjoining farms to disinfect their farms. They should use this money in helping those farmers, rather than wait until the cattle have become infected, and pay for the slaughter. There is also the question of disinfecting railway trucks, docks, stations and markets. At present the principle in most cases is simply to whitewash, which is absolutely useless for the purpose. I would suggest that the Ministry look into the question of seriously disinfecting. With these remarks, I will conclude by expressing the hope that this matter is now going to be seriously considered from a scientific point of view.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: I would like to join with others in congratulating the Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary upon retaining the position that they retain in this House to-day. I recognise that that position is only held by means of support, and that support has been a little weak-kneed
and wobbly. It was only last night that we were thinking we might possibly not get the Third Reading of this Bill to-day. I want to congratulate the Government on the adhesive plaster they have been able to use to retain the support that is necessary. But how long will that adhesive plaster hold?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see anything about plaster in this Bill.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: I desire to congratulate the Ministry upon bringing forward this Bill. I am going frankly to say—and I think I say it for all Members on this side of the House—that we are going to support the Ministry in regard to this Bill. Being the official Opposition, we might be told that our attitude to the present Government is that of opposition. Upon general principles we may be in opposition, but, I submit, in particulars it is not essential that we should be in opposition, and in any Measures that are brought before this House about which we are agreed, we are going to support the Government. The Ministry of Agriculture have brought forward this Bill which we are going to support. May I take it that this is an omen of the good intentions of the Ministry of Agriculture to do what they can to help the Ministry of Agriculture. Owing to the patching-up of their support, the present Minister is still the Minister of Agriculture. Speaking from these benches one can candidly say that as representing agriculture I intend to get as much as I possibly can for this industry. I think we can rightly assume that the Minister has one intention, which is to do the best he can to make the agricultural industry and all those engaged in it prosperous.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to what is in the Bill. The general policy of the Government is not involved.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: The reason why I am desirous, as representing agriculture, to support this Bill is that it enables the Ministry of Agriculture to assist the agricultural community generally. The Bill provides that a certain sum of money is to be given and that the former limitation should no
longer apply. We welcome the Bill for this reason, that we accept it as something that the Ministry of Agriculture is prepared to do for agriculture. I want to say that when these Measures are brought forward by the Government with the intention of doing something for agriculture, we on these benches who represent that industry are going to support the Government in that matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already said that same thing three times, and I must ask him now to resume his seat.

Viscount WOLMER: There are one or two questions I desire to ask the Minister before he replies. May I take this opportunity of saying how sorry I am that the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place on this occasion?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): May I explain that the reason for his absence is that the Minister of Agriculture is meantime engaged with his Majesty?

Viscount WOLMER: I am obliged to the Under-Secretary for his kindness in informing me of that fact I was sure there was some reason for the Minister's absence from this Debate, and I am quite sure that the Under-Secretary will be able to answer the questions put this afternoon. I understood the Minister to say that he had actually appointed the two Committees, but it was said by one of my hon. Friends this afternoon that the Committees are not complete. It is desirable that other names, besides those mentioned by the Minister on the Second Reading, should be appointed. I will tell the Parliamentary Secretary frankly what I have in mind. There is a feeling, which has been mentioned to me by agriculturists outside this House, that some of the names mentioned are excellent, but that others are associated too much with the previous Committee, and that there was too much representation in the previous Committee, to use a slang phrase employed outside, which "whitewashed" the Ministry of Agriculture in 1922. I think it will increase the confidence of the agricultural community if there is plenty of new blood, besides the necessary old blood, on the Committee to ensure continuity of research. In that connection
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the National Farmers' Union had been consulted as to the personnel of this Committee. The National Farmers' Union should always, as far as possible, be taken into the confidence of the Ministry of Agriculture and that men who have the confidence of the elected representatives of the farmers should be employed on these purposes. It is one of the most hopeful signs for agriculture that farmers are far better organised than they used to be, and I hope the Ministry will always take that into account.
I should like to support very strongly the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox) that the military might be employed in this slaughtering policy rather than civilians. In a matter of this sort where the minutæ of disinfection have to be carried out and the slightest mistake or carelessness on the part of a single individual may have the most terrible results, it appears to me to be exceedingly important that the men employed should as far as possible be under discipline. I think the suggestion of my hon. Friend is worthy of very careful consideration. I will give an instance of the sort of way in which a single individual through carelessness can do untold damage. This occurred in Hampshire, within two or three miles of my own farm. In July foot-and-mouth disease broke out in a herd on one farm. Another farmer about three miles away had written to a veterinary surgeon asking him to come and see one of his cows which was calving and about which there was some difficulty. There was no case of foot-and-mouth disease here and that was not in question. When the farmer I am speaking about heard that foot-and-mouth disease had broken out in the other farm, he telephoned to the vet. telling him not to come to his farm because he knew the vet. would have been to the farm where foot-and-mouth disease had broken out and he was afraid of the infection being carried. Unfortunately, the vet. had started on his rounds earlier than usual and the telephone message did not reach him, and while the farmer was away in one part of his farm the vet. walked straight from where foot-and-mouth disease had broken out to this farm where there was no infection. Within the exactly correct time foot-and-mouth
disease duly appeared on the farm of this second farmer, and there can be no possibility of doubt that it was carried by the vet. himself.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to realise what must have been the feelings of that second farmer, especially when I mention that he is a man who by thrift and ability had worked himself up from the position of an agricultural labourer to that of a small dairy farmer. He was completely ruined by this outbreak, because, as I have pointed out already in the debate on this Bill, the compensation paid to dairy farmers is completely inadequate, as they are only compensated for the market value of their cows and receive nothing for the loss of the good-will of the dairy business. This is one of the hardest cases of which I have heard—a man who has been ruined by the carelessness of a veterinary surgeon. Such cases are exceedingly rare, but a circumstance like that does show to the House that it is impossible to be too careful or circumspect in dealing with this disease. Therefore the suggestion my hon. Friend has made is worthy of the very greatest and most careful consideration. No doubt there will be practical difficulties in carrying it out. There are practical difficulties in carrying out every practical policy, but I think it is a matter which should be considered. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether instructions or warnings have been broadcasted to veterinary surgeons throughout the country on this subject by the Ministry of Agriculture. If they have not, they ought to be. I think the Ministry should take steps to impress the gravity of the situation on some of those veterinary surgeons, because there are a great many veterinary surgeons in this country who, to say the least of it, are very lukewarm in their support of this particular policy. One veterinary surgeon told me himself that he thoroughly disbelieved in the whole policy of slaughter that the Ministry was pursuing. When you have men in that frame of mind they require a little gingering up. If they are to be employed, as they must be employed, on the spur of the moment when an outbreak occurs, the Ministry ought to take steps to ensure that the veterinary surgeons fall into line and do everything they can to carry out the policy of the Ministry. There is no use
of the Ministry of Agriculture deciding upon a policy, whether it is good or bad, unless everyone combines to try to carry it out. When you have instances of two different veterinary surgeons of the sort I have mentioned, a certain amount of broadcast instructions from the Ministry of Agriculture is necessary.
The Minister told us in the earlier stages of the Bill that he hoped the outbreak of the disease was now in hand. Unfortunately, the events of the last few days have proved how ill-founded that optimistic hope was. As far as we can make out, there is at present no sign of this disease being in hand at all. Therefore I want the Minister to leave no stone unturned to do everything he can to mitigate the infection and the spread of the disease. It may cost money. It does cost money. But it will be a penny-wise policy to make any economies at a moment like this.
There is one further point to which I should like a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary. That is in regard to insurance. During the early stages of this Bill I raised the question to which I have just alluded of the compensation payable to dairy farmers. I asked whether they could not be compensated on a basis commensurate with their losses as were the stock-breeders. The reply of the Minister was, in short, that it would cost too much money to pay the dairy farmers for their losses, the good-will of their business, and so on. My only comment on that is this: That if the State cannot afford the money, how does the Ministry of Agriculture suppose that the dairy farmers can afford it? The farming industry at the present time is probably in the most distressed condition of all, and your scheme of compensation is arranged in such a way that, while fair compensation is given to the men who are fatting store-cattle, the man who is carrying on a dairy business is not compensated by any manner of means for the loss he sustains by the slaughtering of his herd. That appears to me to be unjust, unfair, and unreasonable. After I had brought it to the notice of the Minister—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

Viscount WOLMER: I am very glad to see so many Members of the Socialist party have now returned to the House. Agricultural matters do not generally find favour with them, and I am very glad to get their assistance and co-operation in this matter.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: There were only five Members of your party present on your side.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. And learned Gentleman the Member for Peniscone (Mr. Pringle)—

Mr. A. SHORT: Is it in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. Maxton) to call attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present, and, during the interval allocated by yourself to make the Count, to see whether there are 40 Members present, for that Member to retire? Is it right?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Young): The hon. Member, I think, can please himself.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it in Order for an hon. Member, in addressing the House, to say that as a result of the Count that these benches are filled up, when, as a matter of fact, it is his own benches that have filled up as there were only five Members present when the Count was called?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The benches on both sides filled up. Viscount Wolmer.

Viscount WOLMER: I beg the hon. Member's pardon if I have offended him, but I was merely congratulating him and the hon. Members of the Socialist party upon having filled up the House. Of course, if I am accurate in that statement there were, I am afraid, a great many absent. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Penistone no doubt is always concerned in defending his Socialist friends. I noticed the hon. and learned Gentleman did his best last night. We all know how the Socialist Government is kept in power, namely, by the adherents of the hon. and learned Member for Penistone. No doubt they are exceedingly grateful to him.

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. I should like to ask how the Noble Lord
connects the Socialist party with foot-and-mouth, disease, or how he connects the diseases of animals with the Liberals; and whether there is any connection between the diseases of animals and the votes of the Tories that kept the Labour Government in power the other night?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think we had better keep to the question before us.

Viscount WOLMER: I was only replying to the questions of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member who has just spoken desires to know what is in order in discussing this Measure before us. I can tell him. The first Clause of this Bill removes the limitation which Section 18 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, imposes on the moneys which may be provided by Parliament towards defraying the costs in the Sub-section mentioned, and be paid to the cattle pleuro-pneumonia account of Great Britain. Section 17 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, says this:
The Board of Agriculture may, for the purposes of the execution of the Sections of this Act relating to the slaughter by the Board of cattle, animals, or swine on account of pleuro-pneumonia, foot-and-mouth disease, or swine fever, employ such additional inspectors, valuers, and other persons at such remuneration as they may incur, and such expenses subject to the sanction that the Board think necessary ….
That is the subject which we are discussing, and which hon. Members are entitled to discuss. I was speaking on one of the most important features of this Bill when I was interrupted, first by the hon. Member for Glasgow on his own account, and, secondly, by the other interruptions which have since taken place. I was speaking of the position in which dairy farmers have been placed by this outbreak, that they had had their herds slaughtered wholesale to a degree which herds have never been slaughtered before, and that they have been paid totally inadequate compensation, whereas those farmers who were fatting cattle for markets are paid the full value of their cattle.
When I brought this matter to the attention of the Ministry of Agriculture on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister of Agriculture did not in the least deny the force of my contention, in
fact he admitted it to the full. But his only defence for the policy of the Government was that it would cost too much money to compensate dairy farmers for all their slaughtered herds, and the full losses which they had incurred. My comment upon that is that if it is too much money for a Government, it is certainly too much money for the dairy farmers. It is the last straw, or rather, the last sheaf, to break their backs. In the course of his remarks the Minister—I must apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary for the length of time it has taken me to reach this point, but I have been really subject to considerable interruption. The Minister held out the hope of enabling dairy farmers to ensure their milk businesses against the losses to which in the event of their compulsory slaughter from foot-and-mouth disease they might be subject. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he would be kind enough to tell me how that matter stands. I am aware that a farmer can take out a policy with an ordinary insurance, company, but it is a very difficult policy, I should think, to take out, and I should imagine—I have not inquired into the subject closely—that the rate of premiums which the farmer would have to pay would be exceedingly high, especially if he lived anywhere near an outbreak. I understood from the Minister that steps were being taken by the Ministry to facilitate the insurance of herds, of dairy herds in particular, against all compulsory slaughtering. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how that matter stands? What is being done? What form is Government action going to take, and whether or not it is going to give some financial assistance in the reduction of premiums? In what way is it possible for the Government to facilitate the insurance of dairy herds against compulsory slaughtering? We shall be very grateful to the Financial Secretary if he will be good enough to give a reply on these one or two matters, for I think that every section of the House desires to support this Bill to the utmost of their power.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not able to be here. I am sure the House will readily agree that his absence arises from no fault of his. I should like also to say that I make no complaint whatever against the time that has been taken up
in discussing this question, because the magnitude of this disease at home is of such great importance to the industry of agriculture that it is not possible to assume that any time will be wasted that will, in any way, help the Ministry concerned in dealing with this question. So far as the general position goes, the present Ministry, that is the present Government, have little chance of viewing this question from the standpoint of anything in the nature of an alternative policy. The policy of slaughter has been in existence now for a great number of years. Every Committee that has investigated this question, has, in its Report, endorsed that policy, I believe, and I think it is also true to say, that there is scarcely any representative of the agriculture interest but what is in favour of it. That being the case, and the further fact that at the moment there is no real alternative policy to the one now in operation, has made it impossible for the Ministry to do otherwise than carry out the course pursued by the last Government. I agree with hon. Members who have expressed their views in the House to-day that the time is not far distant when, as a result of a more close and detailed examination of this question, we may arrive at a happier condition of things than that which exists at present. I think the attitude of the present Government on this subject can easily be ascertained by the readiness with which we have put into operation certain policies in regard to this matter. One hon. Member expressed regret that from the time when he served on the Committee in 1909 practically nothing had been done so far as scientific research is concerned in connection with this dreadful disease. I think that fifteen years having elapsed, as has been already indicated, and the further fact that the present Government within a few weeks of taking office have taken the necessary steps to establish a very competent and we hope a successful Committee to engage in research work, that must be taken as an indication that the present Government is desirous of doing everything possible to remove this disease from our midst, and help the industry in regard to the burdens that fall upon it as a result of this disease.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: Has the hon. Gentleman considered offering a reward for a solution of this problem?

Mr. SMITH: That is a point which has been raised in regard to this matter, but the scientific men themselves feel that there is no need to offer a reward to them in order to get them to do their best to deal with this difficult subject.

Captain BERKELEY: What scientific men?

Mr. SMITH: That is the advice which has been tendered to us. I am afraid I cannot enter into the question of what happens in other countries, but in that regard the Ministry keep in the closest touch possible with all other countries conducting investigations and research work so as to utilise any discovery that might take place in those countries immediately.

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Research work was gone into by the recent Government, and the present Government is only carrying on what we started.

Mr. SMITH: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree with me when I say that we have no desire to prejudice the position of the last Government, and I think that is substantiated by the fact that when I was speaking on the Financial Resolution I specifically stated that they did commence these proceedings by calling in Sir Walter Fletcher and asking him to make a recommendation and advise the Ministry in this respect. We are following on from that point, and I hope we shall be able to establish a Committee which will be of great advantage to the country. With regard to the steps taken to deal with the outbreak, unfortunately, they have not yet succeeded in bringing it to an end. Several speakers have asked whether the Ministry is satisfied that everything possible has been done to prevent the spread of the disease taking place. My answer is that everything that can be conceivably thought of by way of disseminating information and taking precautions to see that movements do not take place, has been done to prevent the disease spreading.
But as I stated before, where you are asked to deal with and control the movements of human beings, it is a very difficult thing to be able to say that some circumstance has not occurred here and there which in itself has somewhat added to the difficulty. I can assure the House
that on every occasion everything possible is done to prevent the disease being carried from one farm to another, and everything by way of publicity and calling to our aid the services of the police and the local authorities generally is done to stop the spreading of the disease. A further question was asked with regard to the limited staff dealing with this question and how it manages to deal with such an enormous outbreak as the present one. I can only say in that regard that the staff have placed their services at the disposal of the Ministry in a manner that commands the greatest amount of thanks from this House and from the country generally. They have spared themselves in no shape or form, and the hours they have been working are astounding. They do their best to get on the spot as quickly as possible, and enlist the services of local agencies to help them to stamp out the diease as quickly as possible.
With regard to the question of proper disinfection, there again every possible step is taken to see that it is carried out as successfully as possible. I think I am correct in saying that the Ministry provide the disinfectants on farms where slaughter takes place in order that it shall not be indifferently done by people who are perhaps not so fully qualified to know what is needed as the representatives of the Ministry. I would like to suggest here that any question of neglect or carelessness or indifference that may have taken place will be the subject of investigation by the Committee which has been set up to ascertain whether any of the spreading of the disease which has taken place is due, firstly, to the inadequacy of the Regulations, or, secondly, to the non-observance of the Regulations that have been made. I can assure hon. Gentlemen who have spoken that the Ministry is hopeful that this Committee which has been appointed will be able to investigate very closely this problem, and as a result of their experience I hope we shall be able to use the information they will give us with advantage in future years.
One hon. Member asked me a question about the freeing of infected areas and the difficulty so far as the sale of shorthorns is concerned. This is not a very easy question to answer, but I can assure the House that every case is very carefully examined, and if, in the light of
all circumstances, it is possible to declare an area free, the Ministry will not keep enforcing the Regulations for one moment longer than is absolutely necessary, having regard to the danger that exists. With regard to the specific question put to me on this point, if such an application is made with regard to the freeing of a particular district, the Ministry will give it the most careful consideration. I cannot say that they will remove any restrictive Order that is now in existence, because it may be dangerous to do so, and if the Ministry were in a generous mood and responded to an appeal of this description and the disease broke out on the same ground again and all the stock became infected, they would be held to have neglected their duty by so readily consenting to this course.
This is a most unfortunate position, because in many cases appeals are made which in themselves seem to be perfectly fair and reasonable, but yet, if they were responded to, undoubtedly they would add to the danger of the situation, and in the end do far more harm than good. In considering any application for the removal of a restrictive Order, the Ministry must have regard to all the circumstances, and only agree to take that course if they are fully satisfied in their own mind that there is no danger arising from any removal of orders now in operation. I have been asked to state the view of the Ministry as to the cause of these outbreaks. I may say that every outbreak is examined to find out the cause, and I am advised that some of them had been traced to market infection and the distribution of stock, which has a very important bearing on the point which I have just dealt with. I cannot say that the exact facts and particulars have been discovered in all cases as to the cause, but I can assure hon. Members that every case has been investigated as far as possible with a view to ascertaining exactly the cause of the outbreak taking place in any given area. I can speak with some knowledge on this question as a member of the last Committee, which found that the cause of the outbreak was the distribution of stock from an infected area before the infection was known at that particular spot, and the result was that it got into the cattle trucks and loading docks, and everything that passed that way took the disease along. Every
care is taken as soon as possible to ascertain the cause at the initial stages of the outbreak, and any information so gained is used in the best possible way to prevent the disease spreading.
With reference to Irish cattle, this point has been raised on many occasions, but undoubtedly in the minds of many people a great deal of suspicion still exists that Irish cattle are a source of infection to this country. This matter has been very closely investigated on many occasions. The Committee which investigated the 1922 outbreak went into that question very thoroughly, and we were forced to the conclusion that we could find no evidence which would justify the assumption that the disease had been brought into this country from Ireland. The officials of the Ministry who are responsible for dealing with this matter do as frequently as is possible, test and examine all the facts and information at their disposal in order to satisfy themselves in that respect, and, if the slightest suspicion exists, or if they consider that there is any possibility of danger, the ports are closed. I do not think it is possible to say that the disease, during these recent outbreaks, has come to this country from Ireland.
Another question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned was that of the disinfection of adjoining farms, and whether rats driven from one farm to another might be carriers of the disease. Those are points on which, it is, of course, impossible for me to say very much in this Debate. All I can say is that the matter is one which can be properly investigated by the Committee that has been set up, and it will really be part of their duty to investigate it. I should like to say, further, that, if any hon. Members of this House have in their possession any information which they think will be of any value to the Committee, I am sure the Committee would welcome it, and would, if necessary, afford them opportunities for giving evidence.
With regard to the question of the two Committees, which was raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), it is not correct to say that both those Committees have been appointed. The Medical Research Committee has not yet been
appointed. Its composition will have to be a matter of very careful selection, and the Ministry will be advised by those qualified to give advice, in order that the Committee may be as effective as possible for its work. As I stated during the Debate on the Money Resolution, the other Committee was appointed from Members who were members of the previous Committee, because it was felt that the inquiry need hardly be so exhaustive as the last one, but could be, as it were, a continuation by a Subcommittee from the point to which the previous investigations were carried. As to the adequacy of that Committee for its purpose, that question is still under the consideration of the Minister. I think I am entitled to say that we want the investigation to be as thorough and as useful as it is possible for it to be, and if the usefulness and thoroughness of the Committee's work can be added to, I am sure the Minister will favourably consider any points in that direction. The fact that the retiring President of the Farmers' Union is a member of the Committee is, I think, in itself evidence that the Farmers' Union is more or less in accord with the Ministry as regards the steps that have been taken.
The Noble Lord also mentioned the question of broadcasting information in order to warn people of the dangers arising in connection with the disease. One would hardly have thought it necessary to do a lot of broadcasting or disseminating information to warn veterinary surgeons. One would have thought that the mere fact of their being veterinary surgeons would in itself be sufficient to ensure that they understood the dangers of the situation. If, however, anything more can be done in that respect, I am certain that the Minister will be very ready to do whatever is possible to put the fullest information into the possession of those who in any way come in contact with this disease.

Viscount WOLMER: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman on than point, what I had in mind was that the experience of the last few months has brought to light a number of mistakes and, possibly, acts of carelessness, on the part of local veterinary surgeons, and I thought it would be useful to have a leaflet issued warning veterinary surgeons in parts of
the country where outbreaks have not yet occurred, so that they may be alive to the mistakes which have already been made elsewhere.

Mr. SMITH: As soon as an outbreak occurs, notices are issued and published warning all concerned, but, if that can be extended in the way suggested, I am sure it is a point that the Minister will consider, because, with the Noble Lord, we are very anxious to do all that is possible to stop the spread of this disease, on account of its importance, and also on account of the inroads it makes upon the industry of agriculture, which does not want any more burdens than it has at present. A suggestion was also made as to the use of disciplined men, for example, soldiers. It is necessary, however, to get to work as quickly as possible, and the policy has been at once to obtain the services of butchers qualified to destroy the animals. I think that if we had to get in touch with the military authorities, we should only have more delay, and, possibly, would not be able to deal with the situation from the point of view from which we have to look at it.
So far as insurance is concerned, that matter has been referred to the Committee, and, that being so, it would be unwise and improper of me at this moment to express any opinion upon it. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. G. Edwards) raised the question whether it would be fair to take the burden from the general taxpayer and put it upon the backs of the agricultural community, which, I suppose, would happen if the policy of insurance were adopted. That is a matter which the Committee will undoubtedly investigate and include in its Report, and if there is anything in the Committee's Report which the Ministry can usefully adopt as a better and more useful method of meeting the burden, I am sure it will be very ready to do so. It is not very easy to handle a big question like this. In the Debates that have taken place some hon. Members have said we are spending too much, and an attempt was even made to limit the amount. Others say that we are not spending enough.

Viscount WOLMER: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to be
unfair to hon. Members. He knows quite well that the proposed limitation was for the purpose of retaining Parliamentary control over the sums expended, and not because any hon. Member, either on this or on that side of the House, thinks that we ought to economise in fighting this outbreak.

Mr. SMITH: I do not think I am going beyond the limits of fair debate when I say that there was an expression of opinion that this was a very costly matter, and that a point of doubt arose as to whether we were not spending too much. All I can say with regard to that is that the Ministry, in dealing with this disease, is endeavouring to deal with it as effectively and efficiently as it can within the policy that is laid down. Expedition is one of the essentials of that policy. Unfortunately, the magnitude of the outbreak has not permitted of the expedition that otherwise would have been possible, but, at the same time, I can assure the House that the Ministry will not be lacking in dealing with the disease efficiently and effectively within the policy that is laid down at the present moment, and in any other direction if any alternative policy to the present one can be found.
Before I sit down, I may, perhaps, say a word on a point that has been raised with regard to finance. I think the fact that the Government is asking the House for this sum of money is evidence that we do not wish to put too great a burden on the local taxation of the country. The amount that will be taken from the Local Taxation Account for this purpose is specifically limited to £250,000, because we do not want to make unfair encroachments upon it. If it turns out that a smaller amount is required, then the £250,000 will not be taken, while if the amount required exceeds £250,000, then no more than £250,000 can be taken from this fund. I think that that provision is in itself a guarantee that we are not making undue encroachments so far as the Local Taxation Fund is concerned. I shall be glad if the House will now allow me to have the Third Heading of the Bill, because, on the Money Resolution, on the Committee stage, and now on the Third Reading, there has been a very ample Debate, although I fully recognise the great importance of the matter.

Mr. GWYNNE: I do not want to delay the Third Reading of the Bill, but there are one or two points with which the Parliamentary Secretary has not dealt quite satisfactorily so far as I am concerned. Firstly, there is the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox) as to the effect of casual labour that is called in to help. We are not satisfied on this side that every precaution is taken in regard to those cases, and I shall be glad to have from the Parliamentary Secretary an assurance that he will bring that before the Minister with a view to the taking of some more effective steps. Then I should like to ask if any further information is available as to the origin of the recent outbreak in Northampton market, and another point with which I do not think the hon. Gentleman dealt satisfactorily, so far as I am concerned, was with regard to insurance. This outbreak is raging all over the country, and nothing is more important than that farmers who have not yet been smitten should take precautions to insure themselves against it. That is necessary both from the point of view of the country and of farmers generally. The premiums charged by insurance companies against risk of foot-and-mouth disease are prohibitive. The hon. Gentleman says that the matter has been referred to the Committee, but I would press him to see that this Committee reports forthwith, and to see whether some scheme of insurance cannot be produced by the Government. During the War the Government had a scheme of insurance against air raids at moderate premiums, and, as a matter of fact, a very large revenue was produced from that scheme. I do not see why some similar scheme should not now be brought forward whereby farmers could be invited to pay a moderate premium, which would go to the Government and help to raise a fund which would pay for the cost of the outbreak. That would not necessarily be putting the whole burden upon the farmers, but it would give them an opportunity of insuring and getting full compensation if their farms were visited by the disease. In view of the fact that this disease is spreading all over the country, the sooner some such scheme is got on foot the better, and I would ask the hon.
Gentleman to see whether he cannot expedite the inquiry and report on these matters.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. SMITH: The Committee to which that question has been referred has already had its initial meeting. The other point I will investigate and see if more efficient steps can be taken.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — TRADE FACILITIES BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
A day or two ago we had a Financial Resolution which set forth at considerable length the proposals which are now incorporated in this Bill. I am sure the House will not expect me to go into elaborate details in the discussion which has already covered a large part of the ground, but I ought, in fairness to hon. Members, to summarise the proposals and also reply to certain discussions which took place during the Committee and Report stages of the Financial Resolution. One of the proposals of this Bill is to pay—this is payment and not guarantee—up to a maximum of three-quarters of the interest on any loans raised in this country by a Dominion or Protectorate within the British Empire for the purpose of embarking upon an undertaking of a public utility character. That is one of the recommendations of the Imperial Economic Conference. I think hon. Members will agree that no time has been lost in incorporating that proposal in a Bill and submitting it to this House. The undertakings are confined to business of a public utility character. The payment is not to amount to more than £1,000,000 in any one year, and the limit which is placed upon payment is five years. I need hardly say that the main purpose of this proposal is to stimulate orders for goods which will be supplied from this country and to help to some extent the unemployment from which we are
now suffering, and also to expedite work which would not be normally undertaken at the present time in the absence of a provision to pay three-quarters of the interest under the proposal which I now recommend to the House. That, in short form, is one of the suggestions of the Bill, which I think will not meet with opposition, looking to the fact that it is one of the recommendations of the Conference and that our scheme now is on all fours with what the Conference recommended.
In the second place, the Bill provides for an extension of the period within which requests for guarantees under the Export Credits Scheme may be received and also for an extension of the period during which this guarantee may remain in force. We extend the period for the acceptance of requests to 8th September, 1926, and we extend the period during which the guarantee may remain in force to 8th September, 1930. The general argument behind that proposal was to the effect that unless the times were extended, and more particularly the time during which the guarantee might remain in force, this scheme would fail to make that contribution to trade improvement and to the provision of employment that we might reasonably expect from it.
Before I leave the Export Credits part of the scheme, I want to make a very strong appeal to the House in a matter which was brought to our notice to-day by a deputation received by the Prime Minister and others, a request by that deputation that something should be done to stimulate public interest in, and public knowledge of, the Export Credits system. In the late part of 1919 this scheme was introduced, again for the purpose of trying to assist certain countries in Europe and in the Near East which were suffering from depreciated exchanges and adverse financial and economic conditions. Originally the scheme proceeded upon a system of advances, which I think very speedily broke down or proved difficult in operation. It was then changed to a system which was much more closely allied to the general practice of trade, namely, a system of guarantee of bills, and a total sum was available, by way of guarantee, of £26,000,000. At a later date the scheme was modified in other directions, to extend, for example, to the
British Empire, to make it a little more elastic in administration and to bring it to the notice of all who were likely to derive benefit from it. But, notwithstanding all that, it remains true to-day that of the total sum of £26,000,000 which was set aside by way of guarantee in the original Measure, only about £8,500,000 has been taken up, and there is, therefore, an ample sum of £17,500,000 now at the disposal of the scheme, if we can bring it to the notice of larger numbers of people. I think hon. Members will agree, in view of that fact, that there is no necessity under this Bill to make any additional provision to the total sum available for guarantees. We have £17,500,000 at our disposal, and until that is used there will be no necessity to take a step beyond that sum.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the deputation was?

Mr. GRAHAM: I ought to have mentioned that this was a deputation of the National Union of Manufacturers, if I remember the title of the deputation aright, and they pressed that point among others. It so happened, quite apart from the deputation, that we were very anxious to make the Export Credits Scheme a little better known than I am afraid it is at present in order to invite larger numbers of people to take advantage of it, to help the export trade and, in helping the export trade, to help employment at the same time. Those are two of the leading proposals of the Bill.
I pass now to that part of the Bill from which the title of the whole proposal is really derived, namely, the part dealing with trade facilities within this country. Some time ago legislation was introduced which provided for the guarantee by the State of principal and interest, or either principal or interest, on sums which were raised for the purpose of undertaking works involving capital expenditure in Great Britain. The aim was again to stimulate employment in conditions of very great difficulty and to put behind certain firms of healthy and legitimate enterprise in this country such a public guarantee as would enable the enterprise to go on, which very often it could not do but for some assistance of the kind. I am afraid outside there is a good deal of misunderstanding on this
part of the proposal. I find many people who still argue as if this were some form of advance or grant. In point of fact, under the system of the Advisory Committee appointed in connection with trade facilities there is of course no advance or grant at all. There is merely the provision of a guarantee. In only one case in all the £38,000,000 of guarantees which have so far been afforded has the State been called upon to make good a loss, in the case of one small brickworks, which I think involved the Exchequer in an expenditure of approximately £4,000. The Act expired about the middle of November last, and it became necessary to renew it in order to carry on this part of the scheme. At the date of expiry, in the middle of November, there remained available by way of guarantee a sum of approximately £11,000,000. We propose to add to that under this Bill £15,000,000, which will cover the period between the middle of November last and 31st March, 1925. That is a period of about 18 months, so that the House will recognise from the broad figures the situation. About £26,000,000 are available in that time. As from this moment, however, looking to the commitments of the Advisory Committee before we could introduce this necessary legislation, the actual sum available until 31st March next will be approximately £21,000,000 or £22,000,000.
Pressure was brought to bear on us in some parts of the House to increase that sum, but I think I satisfied the House on the Financial Resolution that there are substantial reasons against that course. In the first place, we are bound to keep in mind the fact that while this does not involve us in any money expenditure it is, nevertheless, a possible liability for the State, and already it amounts to a total sum, or will with this Bill, of £65,000,000 by way of guarantee. That being so, hon. Members will, I think, agree that a point of that kind must be kept in view when we consider our general credit and other circumstances which are primarily the task or duty of any Chancellor of the Exchequer or Financial Secretary to the Treasury. But there is a second and, it seems to me, much more important reason in some ways, with which again I think the House will agree. If we very largely increase the amount of the guarantee and if we extend the time within which applications can be lodged the undoubted
tendency on the part of possible applicants will be to hold their hand, or to delay lodging their applications, and we shall be robbed of what we very specially desire at present, namely, early application, the early undertaking of work of this kind and the provision of employment for large numbers of people with the least possible delay. There are, therefore, very sound reasons for adhering to the course which we recommend in the Bill. I ought, of course, to say quite frankly that if experience proved in the near future that the applications were considerable it would be for this House to take into consideration whether the legislation should be extended, and I personally see no difficulty in that course provided we are getting a return from this experiment, in which for some years now the State has been engaged.
There is other criticism regarding the operation of this part of the Bill. Many hon. Members have come to me and said the conditions which are imposed by the Advisory Committee are altogether too strict. That criticism turned very largely upon misunderstanding. There is an idea in many quarters that we are standing behind expenditure other than capital expenditure. I think that is definitely ruled out by the terms of the legislation. Then, again, I am afraid there is an idea that we can come to the assistance, by way of guarantees, of people who have got into financial difficulty or distress of some kind. That, of course, cannot be any part, I take it, of legislation of this character, because almost certainly that would involve the State in substantial loss without, I am afraid, doing any particular good to those we wish to benefit. I am satisfied that, while every effort is made to make the Regulations and the administration as elastic as we can possibly make them, we cannot entertain requests coming from sources which might fail to put up reasonable security and which, as they themselves might have stated, were in financial difficulties.
The only remaining point which follows upon a rather strenuous discussion during the Committee and Report stages on the Financial Resolution, is in reference to that part of the Bill which proposes to I give a further guarantee, as to principal
and interest, of £3,500,000 to the Government of the Sudan in connection with the Gezireh Irrigation Scheme. It may shorten the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill if I try to give, as briefly as I possibly can, one or two facts, not substantially the facts that I gave on the last occasion but, rather, facts in reply to the criticisms advanced at a late hour on the Report stage of the Resolution. The House will remember that this Sudan guarantee is a comparatively old story. There has been a succession of Acts of Parliament in which we gave guarantees for the irrigation of this area, mainly because we regarded it as an important scheme to develop, and because we wanted to see an extension of the resources in cotton supply for our own country and, I take it, for the world as a whole. Up to the present time, about £9,500,000 have been guaranteed. The scheme has made considerable progress through various stages, and we are now called upon to complete a total guarantee of £13,000,000 by providing the remaining £3,500,000 for which we seek authority in this Measure. That will enable us to reach the end of the contribution we propose to make in this matter.
Hon. Members criticised the proposal very strongly because of the existence of the Sudan Plantation Syndicate, which now for all practical purposes in charge of this development. Let me try, although the matter must be familiar to many hon. Members to indicate the position as it now stands. This is a syndicate formed under a kind of triangular arrangement with the Government of the Sudan on the one hand, and the tenant cultivators on the other, the syndicate itself occupying what I may call a kind of intermediate position. The arrangement is that, when supplies of cotton are available and can be sold, after the deduction of certain expenses of marketing and one or two other expenses, the return will be allocated in the proportion of 25 per cent. to the Sudan Plantation Syndicate, 35 per cent. to the Government of the Sudan, and 40 per cent. to the tenant cultivators. That is the broad arrangement at the present time. It is a principle to which we have succeeded and which, I take it, we could only with very great difficulty change if, indeed, we could change it at all.
The criticisms suggested that this was a syndicate which was exploiting the tenant cultivator in the Sudan and enjoying the guarantee at the expense of the British Government. Let me say on that point that, unfortunately, we are not in a position to-night to consider this legislation from its initial stage. We have arrived on the scene, for better or worse, I hope for better, when the scheme is approaching success, and when it is necessary for this guarantee to be given if the irrigation is to be completed and if the British firm to which the contract has been let is to complete its task, as it is bound to do under the terms of the contract, by 1925, in order that, as soon as possible after the middle of 1925, a cotton crop may be planted, and we may have a substantial contribution towards Lancashire's supply. We cannot, for all practical purposes, back out of the guarantee at this stage, but we are bound to try to meet the criticisms of hon. Members in all parts of the House when they suggest that, in fact, this syndicate has enjoyed a very large advantage at our expense.
I have been at great pains to road the whole of the facts in connection with this scheme, and I think it is true to say that if we take the earlier syndicate or company which preceded the Sudan Plantation Syndicate, now in existence, and we take the period of 20 years which is covered by this discussion, we shall find that on the actual capital subscribed by the shareholders in that concern the average return over that period has been a little more than 5 per cent. It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) suggested, that in two years—they were years of a boom period, if I remember rightly—a dividend of 35 per cent. was forthcoming, but there was a period between 1904 and 1911 and again, I think, in 1916, in which no dividend whatever was paid. All these facts ought to be taken into very clear consideration when we are trying to weigh up the precise position which this syndicate holds.
I stated on the Financial Resolution that the original contract for the scheme was on a cost and percentage basis, which I do not think anyone would defend if a better basis could be found. That was, of course, very long before our day. In any event, the practical reply to that criticism
at the present time is that the contract is now let upon an economic basis to a British firm, which has been engaged in the task, and which during the last two or three years has expended very large sums of money in this country in the purchase of plant and materials for this undertaking, and has, therefore, afforded a certain amount of employment to British workmen. There is no doubt now about the nature of the contract, and I would remind the House again that they are bound to complete it by 1925 in order that after that time a cotton crop may be forthcoming.
As regards the position of the syndicate with the Government of the Sudan and the tenant cultivators, the House will recollect that there is on the expiry of 10 years after the completion of the irrigation scheme a power to review, and certainly on the expiry of a further four years it would give ample opportunity for full consideration of the political and economic circumstances which were then in force. That provides specifically for a place for the Government of this country in any change or any intervention which is sought to be made.
Therefore, while many of us on this side of the House would not defend this proposal, if we were to consider it to-night as a new proposal, we are committed to trying to carry it out and to bring it to success, in so far as we guarantee to contribute to that end, for a very important and, what appears to me to be, a final and conclusive reason. I am informed, and I have looked at the papers carefully, that if we do not put up this final guarantee of £3,500,000, which will cost us nothing in actual cash, there is great danger that the scheme will be landed in financial or other difficulties. No doubt, the Government of the Sudan would try to find the money in order that the scheme should not fail, but even if we suppose that the Government of the Sudan did try to find the money, it is perfectly plain that they could only find it on terms more onerous or more difficult than so far have been in existence, and to that extent their position, and our position as the guaranteeing party behind the scenes, would be prejudiced. I am not sure that the withdrawal of the guarantee on any other grounds can be justified at this stage, provided that we
are perfectly satisfied that until the scheme is completed fair play and justice obtains all round. There is not the least reason to doubt that failure on our part to give this remaining portion of £3,500,000 will lead to difficulties such as might risk the success of the scheme as a whole. In that case, we should be liable not for nothing at all, if I may put it in that way, but we might be liable for the whole or a very large part of the £10,000,000 in guarantees that we have already put up. I do not think that anyone at the Treasury, whatever may be the tendency of his outlook at the present time, would risk that. I put that as the final reason which compels us to recommend this Bill.
One further point remains, and that is what is the influence of this contribution on the cotton supply. Hon. Members on this side have protested that we should try to take steps to regulate the price of the cotton and, secondly, that we should try to take steps to see that this supply of cotton is available for Great Britain. Taking the second point first, the fact is that all the supplies already forthcoming have been sent to Lancashire, but I frankly confess that it will be very difficult to try to compel growers in another part of the world to send their supplies practically exclusively to any one market. There would be very great difficulty in any effort of that kind at the present time. Let me say on that point and other points—a little later my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will make a statement—that we are quite willing to make all possible inquiry and to see what can be done. The other point relates to the price of the cotton. If you regulate or try to regulate the price of cotton for this particular syndicate in the Sudan, the only conclusion which can possibly be reached is that the price will be regulated in such a way as to bring it below the world-price in cotton supply. That is the only meaning which I can put upon the proposal. On that point, if they were compelled to take a price below the world price, it is clear that we should only prejudice the three parties to the transaction, first the Syndicate itself, with its 25 per cent. interest in what is involved, and also the Government of the Sudan, and the tenant cultivators in the proportions which they enjoy under the scheme. Then there
would be a certain influence upon the guarantee, given by the Government of this country, which will remain in existence for some time. On all these grounds I think that we have met the criticisms in a fair and candid way, and I am satisfied that, everything considered, we cannot afford, in the interests of Lancashire and the employment of large number of people in this country, to see this scheme impeded in its final stages and perhaps produce a position which may spell complete or partial failure. These thoughts we have had in mind in this part of the Bill, and I trust that we have made it clear to the House that they will produce good results.

Mr. WALLHEAD: What is the estimated supply of cotton from this scheme?

Mr. GRAHAM: It is estimated that, if this scheme is put into operation, there will be forthcoming to Lancashire about 70,000 bales per annum, but on that point a great deal depends upon the area which is cultivated and upon other considerations, but that is the best figure which I am able to give the House at the present time. I was about to say, in a concluding sentence, that the whole of these proposals are really a first instalment of the legislation which we intend to introduce, dealing with the problem of the unemployed. In the aggregate I hope that they will set a large amount of work in operation which will provide for a considerable number of people, and on that human ground mainly I ask the House now to give a Second Reading to this Bill.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has just delivered one of those admirably lucid statements by which he has so often earned the gratitude of the House of Commons. He has outlined, in a brief but most complete fashion, the provision of the Bill for which he is now asking a Second Reading. I confess, as one of the people who are mainly responsible for the introduction of this Bill into our series of legislative enactments, that I feel somewhat flattered that it should be the first matter which the new Government should have taken up in connection with the provisions to meet the very serious problem of unemployment. We were told that the
Socialist Government, when they came into power, were the only party in the State with any remedy for unemployment. We were also told that they were completely ready with schemes which they would immediately put before the Legislature. It was suggested in a speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) that they would not be deterred, even by the minority in which they existed, from putting forward the boldest and most audacious scheme which they had in their portfolio for curing this most distressing position.
Up to now we have heard of nothing except some extra employment on housing schemes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cruisers!"]—these were not new, they will give rather less employment than had been suggested by the late Government—and a further extension of the Trade Facilities Act. I think that that is very flattering to the Government which has just gone out of power. The speech of the hon. Gentleman dealt with two things which I think are entirely different. The first is the proposal of the Bill with regard to the guaranteeing of an additional loan to the Government of the Sudan for the purpose of carrying out great schemes of irrigation. I think that the House will understand clearly that that really has got no relevance to the question of the trade facilities scheme. It was begun long before any Trade Facilities Act was thought of, and the guarantee of that loan, which was previously given, has been extended and continued to the present time. One regrets that so much money was required for this purpose. The amount of expenditure has exceeded all that any of us anticipated, but at the same time I am glad to see that the Scottish caution of my hon. Friend has managed to appreciate the fact that, if we do not make the guarantee which he is now suggesting, we run great danger of being compelled to pay up on the guarantees which we have already given.
Our only chance of saving the guarantees for £10,000,000, for which we have already arranged, is to give this additional guarantee, in order to complete the scheme. If the scheme remains incomplete it is obvious that no benefit will accrue to the Sudan Government. For that reason alone, I hope that the House will readily support the proposal of my hon. Friend. But there are two
other schemes. I remember, when I was at the Treasury, being approached by a very important deputation from Lancashire, which represented to me that the production of cotton in the world was being very seriously endangered, and that the position of the cotton trade in Lancashire would be affected seriously unless we developed, with all the energy in our power, new sources of supply. They were well aware of the situation in the Sudan. These were people who were entirely unconnected with the company to which reference has been made to-day, but they urged, in the interests of Lancashire, and the interests of the cotton trade, and the interests of the hundreds of thousands of operatives in Lancashire who depend for their maintenance upon the cotton trade, that the extension of the loan which was then required by the Sudan Government should be given.
I think that the House of Commons, after the experience of recent months in connection with the cotton trade, will appreciate that the situation to-day is far more critical than it was then. Everyone knows that one of the greatest impediments to employment in Lancashire has been the price of raw cotton sold in this country. The reason why the price has been high is that the world supply is not sufficient, owing to the failure of the cotton crop in America, and accordingly a diminished supply was created, and there was a great rise in price which made it impossible for us to sell the finished cotton goods at a price which our customers in the East could afford to pay for the great exports of cotton goods which we used to send to them. In that very difficult condition of things which exists at the present time, it would be extremely imprudent to do anything which would tend to check the bringing into being of any new sources of supply within, I would not say, the British Empire, but within the purview of these lands over which we exercise authority.
After all, we are responsible for the Government of Sudan. The Prime Minister the other night said that the ambition of his Government was to extend the oasis to cover the whole desert. That is what we have been endeavouring to do in the Sudan. Unless something is done in the administration of the Sudan
to increase its possibilities of production, then we are going to leave that country as we found it, a derelict country. Nothing can be done in that country to increase its prosperity unless encouragement is given to the growing of cotton. Unless this dam is put up cotton cannot be grown in that vast area. There must be sufficient irrigation to produce crops. It is our responsibility. Are we going to refuse to recognise our responsibility, and to carry on our good work? If we look at it from no other point of view than its merely sordid aspect, the only way in which the Sudan Government can pay this money is by making the growing of cotton in the Sudan possible. Therefore, from the mere point of view of the Treasury as to meeting our national bills, it seems to me of the utmost importance that we should increase the productivity of that great country, and give the Financial Secretary the authority which is asked for by the Second Reading of this Bill.
So much for the question of the Sudan. I turn now, for a moment, to the general scheme of this Bill. I am glad that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury thinks it important to extend the operation of the export credit scheme. That scheme is not well enough understood in this country, and I support him readily in every means which he proposes to-day to let the community understand what is involved in the provisions of that scheme, because I find that there is great ignorance among the business people of this country as to what can be accomplished under that scheme. The trade facilities scheme is designed to assist employment in this country, and I do not think that any of us will feel that we have accomplished very much as yet in meeting the distress and the hardship which, unfortunately, are so prevalent to-day, owing to the want of employment.
Unfortunately, unemployment grows by what it feeds on. You can very easily take measures to remedy it which only make the disease worse if, for example, you choose the expedience of making great payments out of rates. Unfortunately you must make them at present in order to succour the people who are in destitution, but I think when you go further than that, it can be realised immediately that these schemes become at once a deterrent to employment.
They tend to increase the evil which you are trying to diminish. Every addition which you make to the rates of a community puts an added cost on the production of everything that you manufacture. That is obvious to everyone. [HON. MEMBERS: "So would Protection!"] And everything which adds to your cost of manufacture imperils your chance of getting orders in the competitive markets of the world. May I give the House an example which is familiar to many which will give some idea of the extraordinary results which have been produced already by rates. If you take the period before the War and the period now, you will find that the cost of rates in a ton of finished steel was then 2s. 9d., but that to-day that ton of finished steel bears in rates 21s. 4d., on the average, in this country.

Mr. HARDIE: I am interested in this subject specially. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean royalties when he speaks of rates?

Sir R. HORNE: Not at all.

Mr. HARDIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the local rates that are paid?

Sir R. HORNE: I am talking of rates and taxes, excluding taxes on income. I am referring to all that class of thing which goes on to the cost of the article that you manufacture.

Mr. MAXTON: You are not including railway rates?

Sir R. HORNE: No. The House will easily imagine, when you are competing, as you are now, against foreign nations which derive very great advantages from the condition of the exchanges of Europe, apart altogether from the longer hours that are worked in several of these countries and the lower cost of wages, that anything which goes to the increase of rates has the necessary result of increasing the very unemployment which you seek to remedy. It is the same thing with regard to the taxation which takes a large portion of the revenue away from the business of this country. If your taxation is high the immediate result is that your reserves are decreased, and all of the sums which business people pile up
for the purpose of future development and new enterprise are depleted to that extent and prevent the affording of new employment. Accordingly, I warn the House, if I may be allowed to do so, against schemes—

Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that taxes are paid out of reserves and do not come through the price of the finished commodity?

Sir R. HORNE: All the profits which a business earns, including the profit which it puts to the reserve, but does not distribute amongst the shareholders, is taxed to Income Tax. You say Income Tax is high. To that extent the reserves are depleted, with the consequent result that there is less available for developments and new enterprises. That is perfectly plain to anyone who has considered the problem.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has raised a question in which we are keenly interested, and it would not be right to have this point concluded without its being probed to the bottom. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to make us believe that it is only charges made by the State or local authorities that deplete the reserve, and not charges made by private individuals in the form of rent, interest and profits?

Sir R. HORNE: Of course, rent and all the ordinary charges are things which are costs of the business and are deducted before arriving at profits. But if you have arrived at your profits, and if taxation takes away a large proportion of the profits which are ordinarily put to reserve, the result is that the business is left with less money to carry on with, with less money for new enterprises and new developments, and with less money to afford new employment.

Mr. B. SMITH: Do not bonus shares also deplete the reserves?

Sir R. HORNE: In commending this Bill to the House I wish to refer to a merit which it has. That is that the Bill does not embark upon expenditure of the kind which involves a loss of opportunities of new employment. What it does is to put the Government's guarantee behind loans which the traders of this country require in order to support enterprises which at the present price of money
they would not embark on otherwise. Let me take two instances which are very familiar to myself, because I am in touch with them. Take the new developments of the tube railways in London, upon which something like £14,000,000 has already been lent and is being guaranteed by the Government. I know from my own knowledge that this enterprise would never have been begun now if it had not been for the opportunity afforded of obtaining cheaper money through the Government guarantee. No one imagines that any money is going to be lost on these undertakings. The effect of the Government's action is that you will have no loss of capital, but you have enabled these developments to take place, and employment is afforded to thousands of men by putting the credit of the Government behind this private enterprise.
Accordingly, I commend this scheme. It has worked well till now, though, perhaps, not quite as actively as some of us had hoped. People are only now becoming familiar with this provision. There are some people who have said that it has been administered with too little elasticity. Other criticisms which have been ventured have been to the effect that the Committee have been too rash in giving some of the guarantees. It seems to me that one of these criticisms cancels the other. You will always find people who will look at a matter of this kind from two sides. Some people will think that the Committee has been too cautious, and others that it has been too rash, but, on the whole, anybody who knows how this scheme has been dealt with by the distinguished men who have given their services gratuitously to the State and to whom the State owes a great debt of gratitude, would be ready to express admiration for the skill with which the various propositions have been handled. I think that Sir Robert Kindersley and Sir William Plender, who have been on this Committee from the beginning, deserve the gratitude of the nation for the great work they have already accomplished, and I hope that the Government is in a position to assure us that the Committee will remain with the same personnel as hitherto.
I am glad that the party in power is prepared to support this scheme. Of course, its root idea is entirely contrary
to a principle which, I am afraid, the great bulk of hon. Members opposite supported in the course of the last election. I am not surprised at this change of front, for we have seen some very strange changes of front. This change of front is the reverse of the one that we saw yesterday. Last night the Prime Minister surrendered to a series of propositions which the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), supported by the great mass of those who sat around him, would never have accepted. Indeed, his speech entirely controverted them. To-day the Labour party, in this Bill, is reverting to something which it has always implicitly believed in. That is to say, that the right thing to do was to buy all the goods you could in your own country and from your own people. The root principle of this Bill, in fact, the stipulation on which it is founded, is that money shall be guaranteed only in the case of orders to be put in Great Britain. That is a principle which I commend. I am very glad to see that members of the Labour party are unanimously supporting it to-day, and I hope they will carry it through. As to hon. Gentlemen of the Liberal party, I cannot understand what action they will take on this matter. If the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) were here he could never support this Bill.

Mr. MAXTON: Yes; he is in it up to the neck and over the head.

Sir R. HORNE: The right hon. Gentleman also was pretty good at a change of front yesterday, in running away from a Resolution which only a short time before he had put before the House. But this is a matter upon which he has always been consistent, and I cannot imagine a change in his view upon it. This Bill does violence to the whole Free Trade theory that he consistently put before the country at the last election. It says that you must buy, not in the cheapest market, but in Britain. Everyone knows that the great bulk of the material which will be supplied under these contracts may be purchased in Continental countries at a much lower cost than that which will have to be paid in Britain. I see someone shakes his head. I know the class of material which is ordered and I know the prices. This Bill does not propose purchase in the cheapest market.

Mr. MAXTON: Still we maintain half of the right hon. Gentleman's principles. While the Bill will stop the buying in the cheapest market it still preserves the right to sell in the dearest.

Sir R. HORNE: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that information. Suppose that everyone else in the country were to follow the stipulation laid down by the Government in this Bill, and suppose that everyone decided to buy at home, wherever goods were available to them. You would probably have no unemployment, and in addition you would have a system of voluntary protection. But, whether the Liberal party supports this Bill or not, I have no doubt whatever that it will pass the Second Reading to-day. I hope that it will have all the success which we all desire. I am sure that up to now it is the best scheme that has been devised for the purpose of giving work to men in the trades in which they are accustomed to be employed. After all, that must be the first principle of any attempt to cure the great distress from which we are suffering. I hope that the open-mindedness which the Government have shown in this matter with regard to fiscal theory will accompany them when they begin to consider the question of the safeguarding of industry. There, again, they have an opportunity for the application of a practical mind rather than some theoretic fancy. I am sure that if they do that they will not fail to distinguish themselves in the offices which they hold.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. FRANKLIN: I hope the House will extend to me the courtesy that is always extended to new Members, if I try to explain my thoughts in language to which this House is not ordinarily accustomed, and to put my views in a way that perhaps may be a little bit contrary to what the House might expect. I want to appeal to the Financial Secretary to do something more for the small man. We have seen how much is done for a large firm of shipowners in the last few days, when the Bank Line of steamers made an issue of £1,800,000 with a guarantee by the Government. With this guarantee it meets with a great success. But the issue contained no information that should have been given to intending investors. I ask why there was no mention made
either of the directorate or the conditions of the guarantee. We were told that because the company was managed by Messrs. Andrew Weir and Company, there was no need to give us information which we had been accustomed to look for in other prospectuses. Again, why was it, among the list of contracts set out there, that no mention was made of the fact that is was guaranteed, principal and interest, by Andrew Weir and Company and their partners? Those were important facts that this country should know. The security was made good by the Government guarantee, but the taxpayers of this country who will have to meet this guarantee were entitled to know absolutely the nature of the risk which they had to run. There is another point to be considered here. Why is it that special facilities should go to the big men and the small man cannot get a look in? Here you have given a sum of practically the total value of the ships. [An HON. MEMBER: "More."] The full amount of these ships was advanced on the Government guarantee plus the guarantee of Andrew Weir and Co. This gives a special privilege to special people which, when favours have got to go round, is hardly fair to others. It is quite possible that having obtained money cheaply, having obtained its fleet at what may be the lowest possible price at which tonnage can be produced, they may be able in a few years to sell this tonnage at a big price and repay the Government loan. They may also, when yon come to consider the conditions, be able to compete successfully with those who bought, whether from them or from other shipowners I do not know, at the time of the shipping boom, ships at considerably over the price.
That is not the only point with regard to these trade facilities. What I am pleading for, and what I would like to see, is those trades that have made the success of this country built up once more I am an individualist, and I believe in the opportunity of individuals to build up their trade with help that they cannot get at the present moment. We had a question yesterday with regard to the banks of this country and the assistance they could give to the small man. Banking has changed very considerably during the time that I have been in business. The private banker has practically gone out of business, and the business man no
longer enjoys the consideration that the private banker showed when he was prepared to make advances not merely upon security that was of unimpeachable character, but also partly upon security and partly upon the character of the individual. How many a man now successful, now beyond the needs of special consideration of an advance, has made his money because perhaps the bank or the bank manager said to him, "Look here, old chap, there is an opportunity for you. Buy this or buy that, and we will stand behind you? Cannot the Government in the same way stand behind the small man and give him a chance of keeping up his organisation and of doing something for himself? It is said that the exports credits will do all this. With all due deference to those on the Exports Credits Committee, unfortunately people do not like to disclose the whole of their business to possible rivals. That is no reflection upon anything the hon. Member opposite would do. If it came to a question of myself, I would expose my whole business to him, but there are people who feel that opening their business to people who might thereby know the whole sources of supply would place them in a somewhat difficult position. Therefore, it is no peculiar position that the amounts that are placed at the disposal of the Exports Credits Committee are not entirely used.
The hon. Gentlemen opposite can very well look after the big finances of the trusts; perhaps the gentlemen on the Government Benches look after employment and make employment, even when it places a clog upon our endeavours to enter the temple of peace and keep armaments reduced; but we who call ourselves practical idealists want to do something for the small man. I would like to suggest that in the administration of the Trade Facilities Act something should be done to put more into the hands of the bankers, who are accustomed to have confession made to them by their clients, to coming to a decision extremely rapidly, and to bringing into their business that human soul of finance that means so much. As a banker I shall not in any way benefit one way or the other. It would not come into the
purview of my business in any way, or I would not support it. I do not stand for the class of bankers. I do feel, however, that the bankers of this country can help us to solve these questions, support the smaller man, keep the organisation going, and keep—which is more important than anything else—men employed in their own trade, and not turn them either upon the dole to be made useless, or turn them and the only capital that they possess, which is the knowledge of their trade, to waste themselves upon roadmaking in this country. I have seen them as they come back from that roadmaking—men who were printers, men who were skilled mechanics. I sat for a certain time in another capacity, and I remember my old Bar days as poor man's lawyer in St. Pancras. I have had experience of those who were broken upon the roads, who had not the opportunity of obtaining employment in their own trades, and I have felt that, if something could be done to help the bankers to make advances with some form of State guarantee, we could maintain the small man, maintain the organisation, and maintain men in the employment to which they are accustomed—all things to which, I believe, the whole House is pledged up to the hilt.
People will say that if the Government give guarantees, the bankers, terrible and awful people that they are, will try to throw the whole of their bad debts upon the Government. If bankers, who, after all, are merely trustees for their depositors, are bound to look after the interests of those depositors, should they, if they became trustees for Government money as well as for the money of the ordinary depositor, break faith? We want a combination that will work—a banker lending on joint account with the Government, taking half the risk in everything, and then approaching the Advisory Committee with the usual banking sheet showing the loan that has been given. I heard from the opposite side an interesting accusation against us Liberals that we would be breaking away from our faith if we supported this Bill. I support this Bill because I believe that it can very largely help with capital the development of the country, and that capital is needed. The fact that I regret is that certain trades are specially advantaged while other trades are not considered. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Hudson) the other day,
when he came to the question of the cruisers, said he thought that something might be done for Huddersfield. Something would be done for Huddersfield if we bought in the cheapest market, because we pay for the goods we buy with the goods we produce, and instead of having the benefit to go to certain trades every trade would benefit. I feel that I have trespassed at some length on the time of the House. I do feel very keenly that nothing was done for the smaller man, and I do appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to see if something cannot be done by using some of this large sum of money that is asked for to help the small man to keep in being his organisation, to keep employed people in their own industry, and so help the general development of the country.

Mr. R. C. NESBITT: I also must ask from the House the indulgence requested by the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Franklin), but I ask it in greater measure because I have been longer in the House than the hon. Member, and my feeling is that the longer one has been a Member without making a speech here, the greater is one's need for indulgence. I should be sorry to sound a jarring note in regard to the maiden speech of the hon. Member, but I cannot accept his statement that we on this side of the House are only concerned with the interest and welfare of the larger industrialists. I think we share equally with hon. Members on the other side a desire that the smaller men in industry and commerce and in every walk of life should have the same consideration as the bigger men.

Mr. FRANKLIN: I never intended to say that hon. Members opposite were only concerned with the bigger interests and the trusts, but I said they did take care of the bigger interests and the trusts.

Mr. NESBITT: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for that explanation, and I am glad to hear that in attributing that view to him I misunderstood what he said. Coming to the Bill under discussion, I have nothing to say upon the most controversial part of it, namely, that which has reference to the Sudan Loan. The Bill is what may be termed an omnibus Bill, and it is concerned with four separate matters. Three of those
matters have already been dealt with in this House and have formed the subject of previous legislation, but the fourth is new. Speaking of the Bill generally, I wish to call attention to the fact that three of the four matters with which the Bill deals are concerned, not with the provision of money, but with the provision of guarantees. With regard to the guarantee of the Sudan Loan for irrigation purposes, I make no observation, except to say that, speaking for myself, after the lucid statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and amplified by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hillhead Division of Glasgow (Sir R. Horne), I do not think the House will have any doubts about extending and continuing the guarantee.
With regard to the export credits system, I may venture upon a few observations as one who has spent 30 years in the City of London connected with banking and insurance. I am surprised that out of powers to the extent of £26,000,000 which have been provided for this purpose, amounts to the extent of something less than £9,000,000 have been utilised. The Committee which deals with this matter consists almost entirely, as the hon. Member for Central Hackney will be glad to know, of bankers, reinforced by the presence of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel). No more guarantee powers are being asked for in this Bill; all that is being asked for is an extension of the time in which to exercise the guarantee powers already granted by this House. There should be no difficulty as to that. Subject to what may be the custom of my hon. Friend's bank, I suggest that these are credits of a character not usually undertaken by the bankers of the City of London. These are not short credits; they are longer credits and, in my humble judgment, the whole transaction is in the safest possible hands, and it is a perfectly proper transaction for the Government to undertake. I now pass to the third of the topics dealt with in the Bill. This is an entirely new proposal, and it does not propose to guarantee anything, but it proposes that we should pay something, and that proposal has arisen out of a very interesting situation. It arises out of the Imperial Economic
Conference at which the late President of the Board of Trade presided. It was there proposed to offer to the Dominions guarantees for capital and interest, but they, one and all, said they were able to raise their money without having recourse to the aid of this country, and one of them said the matter did not really interest him very much. I was reminded of that by the remark of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) in a recent Debate to the effect that a friend of his had said that he and his fellow manufacturers were not interested in guarantees of this description.
The alternative proposal which finds a place in this Bill arose out of that discussion at the Imperial Conference. It is quite a new proposal, and it is that we should undertake a payment not exceeding £5,000,000 to defray up to three-quarters of the interest on any loan raised for the purposes of undertakings in the Dominions, in so far as the money raised by that loan is spent on the production of articles in this country. From my experience of matters of this kind in the City I was a little disturbed by something which the late President of ths Board of Trade said in this connection. He said we must make arrangements with each Government in each particular case and that each case must be dealt with on its merits; that some undertakings would take longer than others to become revenue-producing, and that these would want more help, while the others which became revenue-producing more quickly would require less help. I wish for an assurance upon this point. Does this statement mean that when an undertaking which is receiving a payment of interest for the period mentioned becomes revenue-produing, then this country is to receive back again any interest which it has meanwhile provided, or is the payment to be regarded as a gift which will never come back? It is a rather dangerous situation if one person to whom you advance money, whether in principal or interest, is to be called upon to pay it back if circumstances enable him to do so, whereas another person whose undertaking has been less prosperous is to be able to make arrangements whereby he need not pay back at all. I may have drawn a wrong conclusion, but I am stating the impression left upon me after reading the very
clear speech of the right hon. Gentleman when meeting the Premiers of the Dominions. I think that all should be treated alike in the matter of repayment.
We are all familiar with the payment of interest on capital during a period of construction. That goes; it is part of the capital expenses of the undertaking. It does not come back into the accounts when the undertaking has been constructed and becomes revenue-producing. It may well be that this payment of interest is to be in the nature of the interest which would be paid out of capital during a period of construction. That is one of the matters upon which I should like to hear the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. With reference to this new activity for the purpose of providing work for the unemployed, I should like to know how the Treasury proposes to be satisfied. Without quoting the exact words of the Bill, I understand that the condition is that the Treasury must be "satisfied," that the work will be put in hand, that it will create employment, and that it will be done in this country. But I notice no indication as to how the Treasury is to be satisfied. It will be within the recollection of those who were in the House when the previous Bill was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hillhead Division that great stress was laid upon the means by which the proposal was to be carried out, and the Act of 1921 contained the words "after consultation with an advisory committee." I should like to pay a tribute to the composition of the advisory committee under the Trades Facilities Act, and, as a humble private Member, to supplement what has been so well said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead. We could not be in better hands than in those of Sir Robert Kindersley and Sir William Plender, who have given their time and their services to this work. It is very important that the question of what undertakings are to have the advantage of having their interest paid during the period of construction should be carefully considered, and that the Treasury should be advised by a committee of high financial standing. I do not find in the Bill any procedure laid down for working the scheme, but I am in favour of the scheme, and I think it a helpful provision, subject to the points to which I have called attention.
This brings me to the part of the Bill which deals with trade facilities. I had it in mind to say something on that subject, but, like every new Member, I find it has already been said by somebody else far better than I could say it. The amount provided for at the present time is £50,000,000, and the Bill proposes that it should be increased to £65,000,000, and the Financial Secretary stated that he was being pressed to make the amount more than £65,000,000. I hope he will not yield to that pressure. Only an abnormal state of unemployment justifies the Measure at all, and the House of Commons should keep a close eye upon its administration. On the balance of advantage and disadvantage I cannot help feeling that, even if the hon. Gentleman has to come back again when the £65,000,000 is exhausted, it would be more in the interests of the country that an opportunity should be given to the House of saying whether or not a further sum was to be guaranteed. That suggestion is in the interests of sound finance, and in the language of the lawyers it would give the hon. Gentleman "liberty to apply." I hope the hon. Gentleman will adhere to the present proposal in spite of any pressure. A matter in connection with the trade facilities provision which strikes me as going to the root of the whole question is the composition of the advisory committee. The only justification for the continuance of the proposal is the result which has come from the guarantees already undertaken by the advisory committee. The advisory committee are most unlikely—if the esteem and confidence felt for them in the City of London is justified, and we know it is—to allow the Government to be called upon to meet heavy losses under these guarantees. The loss at present is the small sum of £4,000 which is satisfactory. You will observe that that means that they are only going to give guarantees in respect of undertakings which can perfectly well raise money without any Government guarantee. I think that is the natural corollary, and I cannot help remembering that Mr. Hilton Young, who, I think, was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said that he could not say too strongly that these guarantees would not be granted to persons who were able to find the money without them. That was a cardinal
part of the scheme. That being so, I think one is entitled to look in order to see how far that has been translated into action.
I find undertakings like those that have been mentioned, great railway and electrical undertakings, and I do not feel much inclined to criticise the guarantees there—these are public utility undertakings almost—but when I come to private businesses which are receiving guarantees, I may call in aid of the criticism which I am venturing to make the words of the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, because I observe that guarantees have been made very largely to shipping companies. I have not the advantage of being connected with any shipping company, but I observe the name of Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Central Hackney, has said something about the Bank Line. The number and the amount of the guarantees that have been given to shipping companies, I venture to think, are rather out of proportion to the total amount provided under the Act, and although the Act says we shall have regard to the considerations to which I have referred, I think that outside the considerations found in the Act you must have some consideration for the industry itself. I read with great interest the report of the new President of the Chamber of Shipping, Sir Alan Anderson, at its annual meeting last Friday. There is, of course, no greater authority. He has been a friend of mine for many years, and he is a man on whom we can rely. What he said in his presidential address was this:
I notice that in their last days our late Government started lending money to shipowners or shipbuilders on easy terms in order to bring about employment in the shipbuilding centres. We sympathise with the anxieties of shipbuilders, masters, and men, but I feel sure that the best informed among them would agree that it is dangerous to apply this artificial stimulant to the shipbuilding trade in its present condition.
I pause, before reading the next sentence, to ask the House to remember that at the present moment there are in the world something like 8,000,000 tons of shipping laid up, and in this country something like 1,000,000 tons of shipping laid up. That is what the President of the Chamber of Shipping means, I think, when he says that it is dangerous to apply this artificial
stimulant to the shipbuilding trade in its present condition. He goes on:
If shipbuilders and shipowners are left to work out their own salvation according to the economic laws, the orders for ships will gradually increase"—
this was last Friday only—
beginning with special steamers and extending, as owners gain the impression that the time of lowest prices is going past; but if shipowners who have had such severe lessons of bad trade due to excess of ships in the world gain the impression that their business is to be made a cockpit for non-economic Government activities, it seems probable that every ship that is built before its time by Government action will postpone a dozen or more other orders which would otherwise have been placed.
Coming from such a source, and noticing the large amount that is being guaranteed to shipowners—I say nothing more about other private enterprises—in the absence of all the particulars that we in the City of London look to find in a prospectus, I think this is a matter for consideration. I speak with the greatest possible respect to the advisory committee, for I cannot conceive of a more difficult task than to deal with the various schemes put forward, but it seems, perhaps for very good reasons, that they have acceded rather readily to the applications of the shipowners.
I want to say this, finally, that I agree with what the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said, I think, on the Financial Resolution, namely, that he thought there should be more information given to the House. It is not my purpose to analyse this evening the returns which are made to this House, but the information contained in them is meagre in the extreme. I noticed the other day that somebody said of the persons who apply and whose applications are refused," Cannot their names appear, and cannot the reasons for refusal appear?" I think that would be a most unfortunate course of action. I can only say it would be of great disadvantage to those who have applied, and perhaps rightly applied—certainly rightly in their own estimation, or at least, I hope so—that it should be known publicly that their applications have been refused, but with regard to those who have received the guarantees, more particulars should, I think, be supplied. There is no reason why those particulars should not be supplied. I do
not observe any dates on which the moneys will be repaid. I do not know whether they are for a long term of years or a short term of years, or whether they are all for the same period. I know that when you make an application to the Advisory Committee you have to say what extent of employment will be created if the loan is guaranteed, but there is no information given to the House, after the guarantee has been given, as to the extent to which employment has benefited. I do not want to go into details, but I do ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to see that we are put in possession of adequate material in regard to the conditions under which these guarantees are given. It only remains for me to thank the House for the very patient way in which they have listened to my speech, and to resume my seat with some thankfulness.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Ponsonby): I hope the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Nesbitt) and the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Franklin), who preceded him, will forgive me if I do not follow them in their exceedingly able and interesting maiden speeches, but I intervene for a very few moments in this Debate in order to deal with a small point in the part of the Bill which concerns the Foreign Office. In the debate that we had on the Financial Resolution the other night, several points were raised by hon. Friends of mine on this side of the House, and I was impressed by the fact that there seemed to be a lack of the information for which they asked. In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, we have decided to approach the Sudan Government with a view to clearing up some of the points more effectually, and a despatch will be sent, through the British Residency at Cairo, to the Sudan Government asking them if they cannot obtain an undertaking from the Sudan Plantation Syndicate, Ltd., that all cotton produced in the Gezireh district shall be offered for sale in the first instance in Great Britain; then whether, in order to prevent any attempt on the part of the Syndicate or of any other important financial interest to effect a corner in long staple cotton, they could
examine the possibility of fixing a maximum price. I foresee a good many difficulties in that, but there is no reason why that question should not be put to them. More especially we want to have full information with regard to the treatment of natives, and we are asking for a report on the present system of taxation, particularly with regard to its incidence in this area, and how it affects the cultivators in the Gezireh. Finally, we are asking for a report as to the exact system under which the tenant cultivators will develop their plots, with particular reference to the security of tenure enjoyed by the tenant cultivators. I think that really covers the points that were raised the other evening, and we are anxious to see that this scheme, for which, as my hon. Friends know, we are not ourselves responsible—it is a legacy—shall anyhow not be subject to adverse criticism which we should feel was justified.
I need not enter further into it, because the Financial Secretary has really covered the ground most fully. I would only make a plea at this stage of the Bill, and ask the House that it will be good enough to allow us to have the Second Reading of the Bill this evening by a quarter past eight o'clock. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There will be other opportunities for discussing it, on the Report stage and on Third Reading. Business is so behindhand just now that I am afraid that not only the Easter Holiday but the Whitsuntide, and the summer holidays are in jeopardy, and if we do not have the weapon of the Closure, it must be the very much more formidable weapon of continual session. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will allow us to have a Second Reading of the Bill to-night at a quarter past eight. They will have ample opportunity, on further stages, of discussing the Bill.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: The Prime Minister addressed the House on the 12th February, and said:
We.… propose to speed up the Trade Facilities Act.… which requires to be reinvigorated. … Such a letter as that addressed to the late Prime Minister by Sir Allan Smith has already been taken into consideration, and will be made the subject of proposals later on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1924; col. 760, Vol. 169.]
That letter was addressed by Sir Allan Smith, as Chairman of the Industrial
Group of the House of Commons at that time, and the memorandum which accompanied it had been prepared with very great care, and expert opinion from outside had been consulted. That document contained a large number of proposals in connection with the Trade Facilities Act, among which there was one to which I propose to devote my attention this evening. It was the one to which the Industrial Group attached the greatest importance, because if carried out it would give a very large amount of employment at once to our engineering industries in this country. It is in dealing with skilled labour that we find the greatest difficulties to-day, and for that reason I propose to deal with that one thing more especially. That scheme was in connection with a proposal to carry out the electrification of a considerable amount of our railways, not only upon the suburban systems, but also portions of the main line systems.
In dealing with the various proposals which have been put before the Advisory Committee, that very able body referred to just now, I do not wish in any form or shape to suggest that they have not done their work in the most admirable manner, and with particular regard to the safety of the country's money, which they have the duty to look after. But I do suggest that the guarantees demanded in most cases have been exceedingly strict, and, perhaps, more complete than would be necessary, and quite as great as those which would be demanded by financial houses under similar conditions. I entirely associate myself with the views expressed last Tuesday by the hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Sir R. Aske), when he suggested that the administration of this Act has been far too cautious and narrow. It seems to me it might be useful, and of great assistance, to the Advisory Committee, if the Government were to give them some indication that absolutely looking after the safety of the money that they are guaranteeing, and nothing else, should, in certain cases, be not quite as strictly observed as it is today. It might be an advantage, too, if in addition to the members who compose that Advisory Committee, and who are most eminent financiers and bankers, a representative of our great industrialists, were added to see that the moneys which are granted give the greatest amount of
employment possible, particularly to those classes of labour which, at the present moment, are most lacking employment. Upon this subject, I should like to refer to some remarks which were made on the discussion of the Appropriation Bill, on the 1st August last, by the right hon. Gentleman who is now President of the Board of Trade. Referring to the letter of Sir Allan Smith and the proposal contained therein, the right hon. Member for North-west Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) said:
That sort of work is extremely valuable. It gives employment to skilled men, whereas municipal public utility relief work is broadly pick-and-shovel work, which can be done by unskilled men."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1923; col. 1581, Vol. 167.]
In the same discussion, the right hon. Gentleman who is now President of the Board of Trade said:
I would ask whether it is not possible for the Government to make representations to the railway companies to ask that they should put this work in hand with the least possible delay. It is not enough to talk about schemes for electrifying suburban traffic on the southern lines and other lines Surely there are larger schemes for electrification of large stretches of the main line winch have been under the consideration of the companies, which the companies know will be profitable to them, and which might be put in hand if only the Government would exercise the influence which it is entitled to exercise upon the railway companies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August. 1923; col. 1589, Vol. 167.]
I feel confident that if my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade had occupied that position to-day, he would have done everything in his power to bring about the desired result. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, who made the remarks which I have just read to the House, will carry out the suggestions he then made, and see what can be done in that direction. The proposals set forth by the Industrial Group are certainly such as must be remunerative. The experience of electrification so far carried out is quite sufficient to justify the statement that in not a single case in this country has it not proved a great financial success. Comprehensive schemes of electrification need to be placed simultaneously, instead of bit by bit, as at present and in the past. By comprehensive schemes, I mean schemes for which plans were completed some time back, and
which railway companies could, if they so wished, place in hand at once. In carrying out such railway electrification schemes, there would be a very large amount of other work put in hand for which no Government guarantees at all would be required. Large electrification schemes mean the supply of a large amount of electric power, and the contracts into which the railway companies would enter would immediately bring about the extension of large existing stations, and the creation of new ones, and it would do a great deal to benefit districts which, to-day, not being industrial, cannot possibly expect to get large supplies of electric power at cheap rates, such as could be supplied if large power stations were erected for the purpose of supplying railways. In placing such orders, the railway companies would not only benefit our workpeople and our industries all over the country, but they would bring about a very much better condition of trade, which would react upon themselves, and give them increased traffic.
It has been suggested by some that large expenditure for the electrification of very considerable schemes might involve certain risks to the shareholders, and, more particularly, it has been said by some that the electrification of portions of our main lines would not be remunerative. May I quote the remarks made by Mr. Macrae, who was the chairman of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company, at the annual general meeting on the 15th February, 1922?
From the extension of our electric system we anticipate a very considerable increase of traffic. A report has been prepared after many months of careful investigation. It has been submitted to the Minister of Transport, and included the electrification of the whole suburban area, as well as the equipment of the main lines as far as Brighton and Lewes. We have received favourable reports on the commercial and financial results likely to be attained. We have all the plans worked out, and are in a position to place the contracts. We have the advice of experts, supported unanimously by our officers concerned in the working of the railway, that, in order to hold our traffic, it is imperative that this work be undertaken, and that the results will be greatly to the benefit of our proprietors in the way of increased revenue and profits. Is it not our clear duty to you and to the public to get ahead with the work? If we were independent we would do it, and would set about it at once.
At the same meeting a very eminent authority, and one with great experience of railways and electrification, Sir Robert Perks, stated:
What I want to say is this, that I hope the board of this company will go fearlessly forward with a really profitable scheme of electrification, which should include the two most important points, Brighton and Eastbourne. I do not think this company ought to be satisfied with simply an electrification of suburban lines.
In his reply to the remarks at that meeting, Mr. Macrae stated:
The total estimated cost of the electrification of the whole suburban system and the main line generally to Brighton and Lewes is £10,000,000. So careful were we that we should make no mistake that we determined to check the advice and opinion we had received by some independent authority. We did so. We obtained what we were told was the highest authority available in the world, with the result that we obtained from him a report confirming, in the fullest possible way, the advice, and expressing his own unbounded belief in the results which would be obtained by the electrification of our line. These results were of such a character that personally I am convinced it is only by carrying out such a programme as this that we can hope to maintain dividends on this line.
At the next annual general meeting, on the 21st February, 1923, Mr. Gerald Loder, who presided, said:
During the year we have pursued our policy of electrification, but progress was checked by the impending amalgamation.
In that connection, I would point out that, whatever benefits may have been achieved, or may be anticipated, by the grouping of our railways, it certainly has unfortunately resulted in very considerable electrification schemes that were prepared practically falling to the ground, and not being proceeded with at the present moment. But for that amalgamation, or grouping, we know, from the public statement made at the time, that the Great Eastern Railway Company would have electrified the whole of its suburban system. It had plans prepared, and was ready to carry out the work. The North Eastern Railway Company had complete schemes from York to Newcastle, and that work would, undoubtedly, have been taken in hand but for the grouping. We know, too, from statements I have just read that the Brighton Railway had the intention of carrying out complete electrification of its suburban lines, a portion of its main line. All that work to-day is stopped, and very little electrification
is being proceeded with which was not decided upon before the grouping. I think, perhaps, the House has not realised to what extent main-line electrification is in operation to-day, not only in the United States of America, but also on the Continent of Europe, or the great schemes which are now being completed, and the new schemes being taken in hand. In passing, I would refer to the fact that there appears to be rather a misapprehension on the part of many that the only main lines worth electrifying are in countries where there is no coal available, or in very mountainous countries where water power can be secured. That is not in accordance at all with the facts. Some of the most successful main-line electrification schemes are in Germany to-day, some of which have been in operation for 10 years, on 100 or 150 miles of road in places where electricity is generated by steam. In the United States the same thing holds good. Part or the Orleans railway is being electrified and part of the heaviest portion, just outside Paris, is going to be supplied from a big power station in Paris. It appears to me that if anything can be done to accelerate work of this kind, a great deal of good will be done in regard to unemployment. Not only is that so, but large schemes of that kind, if taken in hand in sufficiently large numbers, will enable the work to be distributed among all our different manufacturers, instead of each contract as it comes along being raced for, and one getting it and the other getting nothing. It is work which will take some years to complete. It will enable the manufacturers to work out a programme which will allow them to look two or three years ahead and keep down their standing charges, to produce more economically, and put them in a far better position for competing for orders abroad. In conclusion, I should just like to say—

8.0 P.M.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would go on for the rest of the night if I were you.

Sir P. DAWSON: Well, I hope I know my job. I have no interest in this matter personally. I would like to see this electrification work carried out on the scale suggested in the memorandum presented by the Industrial Group, which the Prime Minister referred to on the 1st January. Work of that kind would bring
about, not only a great improvement in employment, but would get skilled people to work, and give them safe work for the next three or four years. It would have another and very beneficial effect, because experience has shown that, when works are full, plenty of people are ready to place orders, and it is always when little work is going on that people are afraid to place orders. If they realised what it was best to do, they would place their orders when there was little going on, because they would get quick delivery and receive their plant on the most reasonable terms. Electrification covers a very much larger ground than appears at first sight. It means rails, it means steel work, it means coaches, locomotives, buildings, piping, boilers and coal conveyers. It will give work in all those things all over the country, to the steel worker, the coal miner and the foundry-man, and by carrying out work of that kind the country would be risking nothing by giving any guarantee that might be necessary to induce the railway companies to proceed. I venture to suggest further that the Government might see its way to overcome difficulties that the railway companies might have in carrying out work of that kind. The railway companies might suggest, and I think quite reasonably, that there might be certain risks in carrying out electrification, that they might not be able to earn the money required to pay interest on their capital, and I think the Government should urge the advisory committee that they should bear any risk of that kind. Wherever electrification has been I carried out, it has been a financial success, and I suggest that it will be a financial success in this as well as in other countries

Mr. HARDIE: I am always surprised I that in these Debates on Trade Facilities we go away to Egypt or some far-off place in order to deal with the subject The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) made it plain that whenever private enterprise fails because of it being in the clutch of the banker, it has to pick a section of the Socialist programme and get the whole community to guarantee cheap money. The whole fraternity of bankers have said to-night that, wherever private industry rules, where the maws
of capitalism cannot be filled, they are ready to adopt that part of Socialism which is to give them cheap money. This is not a trade facilities scheme at all If it had been a trade facilities scheme it would have given to the industries concerned the means of increasing their trade or carrying it on. In the city I represent, three weeks ago, there was an order going for £20,000 of machinery. An application was made for help under the Trade Facilities Act, but the whole thing was turned down. When you ask why a thing like that was turned down, the bankers in this House all say that it is a bad thing to tell the truth about why help under the Trade Facilities Act has not been granted. My opinion is that you cannot go wrong at any time in telling the truth, and I believe it would be a warning to any people who are trying to do shady business, if the truth were to be told. Why should we talk about Egypt and dams in Egypt when ye have in our own country, where not the slightest attention has been given to the re-organisation of industry since the War, a big-import of oil coming in while we send all our own oil out of the country? Britain contains in her strata the most valuable oil in the world, but we are so stupid and so non-technical, that we in this House, night after night, talk about Egypt or India while at our own doorstep there are all these great depths waiting for development and only requiring a little help in the shape of trade facilities.
Here is industry crying out about the cost of living, owing to the higher cost of petrol. Have we not the intelligence in this country to combat such an increase? If we could only see to it, we have the power and the skill to produce fuel in this country from our own raw material that would make it absolutely useless to import a single gallon of petrol from any other country. And what have you got on your railways? Every time you change your train at Crewe you wait till another train is made up to take you somewhere else. This is due to the shortage of stock. But before the War we carried one million tons of pig iron in this country and to-day we do not carry so many pounds. On this subject I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead a question as to what he said
about the increase of rates on steel from 2s. 9d. a ton to 21s. 4d., as it is now. I do not accept those figures, and I would like if the right hon. Gentleman would provide me at his convenience with information as to how these figures are made up. The Member for Hillhead is connected with steel, and he ought to know that, right from the manufacture of the crude pig iron up to the steel, we have got in this country the most inadequate system. He did not say whether the 21s. 4d. was made up in the actual ton of steel, whether it was on railway rates or on the pig iron, or how it was made up.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am afraid I can only speak again by leave of the House, and I simply rise for the purpose of appealing to hon. Members to give us the Second Reading of this Bill. The House has already had the Second Reading, the Committee stage and the Report stage of the Financial Resolution. The House will have, after the Second Reading tonight, the whole of the Committee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading of the Bill on the Floor of the House. I would remind the House that the Act has now expired, that a very large amount of employment depends on this Bill, and I believe this view commends itself to my right hon. Friends opposite. It is an agreed Bill, and I earnestly appeal to them to give it a Second Reading.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I would point out that there is £61,000,000 at stake here. I am loath to stand in the way of giving work to unemployed men, but we who have studied this Bill know that there is a lot to be said about it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) ventured to give an opinion upon the working of the Bill which, from my experience, I know is not the fact. As a matter of fact, we get a large number of applications and we grant the facilities, but when the time comes to take them up the firms find that they have not got the orders. I do not see why we ought not have another hour or two in which to debate this Bill. I should like to explain what I think could be done.

It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under STANDING ORDER NO. 10, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN POLICY (MINISTERS' STATEMENTS).

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
In accordance with a Notice which I gave at Question Time, I move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to the definite matter of urgent public importance referred to at Question Time on Monday and again to-day. That matter of urgent public importance includes two questions which are fairly distinct, but which are both of the utmost importance. The first is: what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the question of the revision of the Treaty of Versailles? The second question is, the whole constitutional question of the responsibility of Ministers and Cabinet solidarity. At Question Time it was suggested by, I think, more than one hon. Member that the Home Secretary, in the speech which he made on Saturday at Burnley, was speaking as a private individual, that he was only giving his own personal opinion to his immediate audience. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I note that that statement is endorsed by hon. Members opposite, but I suggest that a person in the position of Home Secretary cannot speak as a private individual when he is speaking in public. With the single exception of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, there is no Member of the Government who, by his position, is more important and more looked upon by the public as the mouthpiece of the Government than the Gentleman who holds the great position of Home Secretary. I venture to submit this proposition: Either the Home Secretary's private views, which he was expressing, agree with the policy of the Government or they do not. If they do not agree with the policy of the Government, if he expresses his personal views on a matter, a crucial matter of public policy, and he finds that those views are out of accord with the views held by his leader and by his colleagues in the Cabinet, then, I say, that the right hon. Gentleman has no right or title to remain a Member of the Government.
The views which the Home Secretary expressed on Saturday were not merely thrown out in a general form, in a vague statement of dissatisfaction with some
part of the settlement that followed the War. It was no general statement of that sort. He gave his opinion with the greatest possible precision, and in a long, closely-reasoned argument. I want to call the attention of the House to one or two of the things said by the Home Secretary, especially if it is to be suggested that he was only speaking in his private capacity. I would specially call attention to these words of the right hon. Gentleman:
He wanted the public to understand where the Government stood.
Can it be maintained that an important Cabinet Minister is entitled to go down to the country, to have his words reported all over the world, so that the public should understand where the Government stood, and then for it to be said that these words are of comparatively no importance, and that they merely represent a personal and private view? Just let me remind the House what was said by the right hon. Gentleman:
He was convinced that until we had a Government which was prepared, not only to promulgate such a policy"—
that is a policy of the revision of the Treaty of Versailles—
but to press it, and take risks, and stand by it, we could not hope to have an enduring, stable, political, and economic settlement among the nations of Europe.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That opinion is endorsed by some of the followers of the right hon. Gentleman—and I am very anxious to find out—I have no doubt we shall in the course of the evening—whether it is also held by the Prime Minister, because it is a matter of very vital importance. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to speak of
our task.
Not "my opinion." According to the right hon. Gentleman "our task" is the establishment of a real peace. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is it yours!"] I entirely agree! [HON. MEMBERS: "Did you always agree?"] But I want to bring the attention of the hon. Members who cheer to the methods by which that real peace is to be achieved in the opinion of the Home Secretary, who is letting the public know where the Government stands. He says, speaking of "our task":
All of us who value world-peace and desire to see the inauguration of a new era of international co-operation and good will
must insist as an absolute essential upon the revision of the Treaty of Versailles with all expedition possible.
And, lest it should be suggested that the right hon. Gentleman only had in mind some of the minor questions connected with the method of obtaining reparations, or something of that sort, he went on to say:
As regards both the territorial and economic aspects of the Treaty of Versailles revision, in his opinion, was not only essential, but was very much overdue.
[HON. MEMBERS: "In his opinion!"] Those are the views put forward, as I say, with the utmost publicity, purporting to be the policy of the Government, by one of its most important Members A question was put on Monday to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and he dealt with it in a rather curious way. First of all he said:
I am not going to commit myself as to whether the statement was made or not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1924; col. 46, Vol. 170.]
He did not know. I do not complain that the right hon. Gentleman did not know on Monday, although the speech was made on Saturday, as to whether these opinions were expressed by his colleague or not, but he evidently thought it a matter of such very trivial importance what his colleague did say that he has not taken the trouble to verify it up to the present moment—or, at any event, up till question time today. He was asked at question time whether he had communicated with the Home Secretary to ascertain whether the speech was made to which the right hon. Gentleman would not commit himself on Monday, and he said that he had not done so. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
That statement, if made, was not a statement that has been passed by the Cabinet. The statements that I have made in the House and the action that I have taken are statements and action for which the Government are responsible.
"The statements that I have made," says the right hon. Gentleman, but he has made no statements on this subject. I have taken the trouble with diligence to go through every word he has spoken since he became Prime Minister in this House, and he has not said one syllable about this question of the revision of the Treaty of Versailles. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that to-day,
because his answer means "I have said nothing." When he said that on Monday we really implied from the negation that he had made no statement. The right hon. Gentleman has said a great deal about the necessity of perfectly frank and straightforward diplomacy. I do not want to say anything which in any way may appear to be lacking in respect to him, but I do not think the House will quarrel with me if I say the right hon. Gentleman has time after time taken up the attitude in this House of saying "Thank God I am not as other men are"—[Interruption]—or even as those publicans. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the way in which he handled this matter on Monday and to-day is a conspicuous example of his exceptionally straightforward manner?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): indicated assent.

Mr. McNEILL: I do not agree with him. The Prime Minister says that the statement made by the Home Secretary was not passed by the Cabinet. Perhaps not, but what we want to know, and what we ask for, is not whether the statement was passed by the Cabinet but whether the statement, as made, represents the policy of the Government. The Prime Minister, without actually saying so, implies that it does not represent the policy of the Government. I must say that I have a certain amount of sympathy with Mr. Henderson, the Home Secretary, if he thought that in making this statement, an extract from which I have read, he had the support of the Prime Minister, for in that case he was not without excuse. I do not lay much stress on the fact that a revision of the Treaty, as outlined by the Home Secretary, took a conspicuous place at Hamburg in the Internationale Socialist Organisation, connection with which hon. Members opposite are now so anxious to minimise. It is interesting to find that that Resolution had a place there, and the Home Secretary wrote an article in the "British Weekly," in which he said:
It is certainly true that every affiliated party agrees to accept the decisions of the Internationale.
No doubt the Home Secretary thought that would give him authority for putting forward this part of the policy of the Government. But that is not all. He had
still better reason for expecting to get greater support from his leader than he appears likely to get. I find that there was a manifesto issued just before the Election signed not only by the Home Secretary, but also by the Prime Minister himself, and in that manifesto I find, after the usual rather flowery language about
labour's vision of an ordered world
these words:
It stands for the immediate calling by the British Government of an International Conference (including Germany on terms of equality) to deal with the revision of the Versailles Treaty.
Therefore, when the Home Secretary went down to Burnley and made his speech I think he certainly had some ground for expecting that be would be supported by his leader, and that he was entitled to say, as he did say, that in so speaking he was informing the country where the Government stood. I am not trying to take up the attitude that every clause, semi-colon and comma in the Treaty is sacrosanct, and that no arrangement can be made with regard to any part of it which might not produce a better state of affairs. No one would ever deny that. The Government of which I was a member repeatedly tried to bring about an arrangement, and I wish the Prime Minister every success in that direction.
That, however, is not a revision of the Treaty. If the right hon. Gentleman finds that by special Conventions or Protocols with certain States he can make an arrangement which will introduce a better state of affairs between us and that particular State, there is no reason why he should not do it, without revising the Treaty. But the revision of the Treaty is a very different thing. I wonder very much whether, since the Home Secretary made this speech, the Prime Minister has received either remonstrances or requests for explanations from foreign Powers I should be very much surprised if he has not, because I notice that the Press on the Continent has attached very great importance to the speech of the Home Secretary. I expect, if our own Press is correctly informed, such a statement made by the Home Secretary would cause a very considerable flutter in opinion abroad, and no wonder.
What does revision of the Treaty of Versailles mean? The Treaty of Versailles is the basis now of the whole
public law of Europe. The whole of Europe, as at present constituted, rests upon it. There are, I think I am right in saying, 32 signatory States whose signatures are attached to that Treaty. Before you could revise the Treaty in the sense adumbrated by the Home Secretary, you would have to convene the whole of those signatory States and get their agreement to the revision proposed. Everyone knows that a large number of those States have been dissatisfied with the result, and any settlement that could be made would give dissatisfaction in many quarters. If the whole settlement is to be reviewed, and if once we start revision, no one can say where it is going to end. There is hardly one of the States brought into being by the Treaty, and hardly one of the States that have lost territory by the Treaty, that would not be ready to come forward with their own Particular grievance, and would not urge it for all they were worth; and there would be absolutely no security whatever that you would ever get a real agreement again, and that the settlement which you are prepared to tear up, in order to carry out this vision of an ordered world, would ever be reconstituted on anything like a settled basis. If you once admit that the settlement, whether good or bad—and, like all things human, it is of course, imperfect—if you once admit that it is to be revised this year or next year, why should it not be again revised the year after? Where are you going to get any finality in a matter of this sort if you once start? Revision means an entirely new Treaty. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes. You cannot revise the Treaty, you cannot re-open the Treaty, without allowing every one of the signatories to put forward their own demands for a particular change to their advantage in the new Treaty that is to take its place.
There is one very important matter which I would most earnestly bring to the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House. In the very forefront of the Treaty has been the Covenant of the League of Nations, and it is interwoven into the texture of the Treaty in almost every Clause. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well, and so do I, that there are certainly some States that are not altogether enamoured of the Covenant of the League of Nations. It
was accepted in the settlement partly, I think, owing to the fact that at that time it was believed that the United States of America would take part in it, and it was very largely due, I think, to the influence of President Wilson at that time. There has been a good deal of disillusion on that, as on other things. Is there the smallest security that, if you start revising the Treaty and putting a new settlement in its place, you will again get agreement in constituting a League of Nations such as we have now, to say nothing of a better one? I do not think there is any such security, and, therefore, it is of the most urgent and vital importance to know exactly where the Government stand as regards this matter. I think we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman not to refer us to some statement which he either made or did not make, that we may draw our inferences from that, but to tell us, without equivocation, whether or not the Government is dallying with the idea of revising the Treaty of Versailles if they get an opportunity of doing so, or a majority that will enable them to do so. The Press in this country, even that which is very sympathetic to the right hon. Gentleman, is, I think, very well aware of the seriousness of the issue that has been raised by the Home Secretary. I notice, for instance, that the "Manchester Guardian," which has been very sympathetic to the present Government, said, in a leading article yesterday:
The result of attempting to upset now the whole fabric of the Treaty, as Mr. Henderson proposes, would merely be to throw the greater port of Europe into turmoil and to accomplish nothing.
I would also quote another paper which I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit has certainly not been unfair to him, and that is the "Times." The "Times" concluded a leading article with these words:
Nothing but mischief can result if unauthorised Ministers are to make impossible declarations of policy which the whole world rends to-day and the Prime Minister repudiates to-morrow.
I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman two things. I want to know, does the Prime Minister or does he not definitely repudiate the policy propounded by the Home Secretary as essential; and, secondly, if he does so repudiate it, what is the Home Secretary going to do? [An HON. MEMBER: "That
is his job!"] I will ask the question of the Prime Minister all the same, assuming that he is not altogether a disinterested party. The Home Secretary's own words, may I remind the House once more, are these:
Unless the Government is prepared, not only to promulgate a policy of revision, but to take risks and stand by it, we need not hope to have an enduring settlement of Europe.
In these circumstances, is he himself going to remain a member of the Government that is not going to take that risk—and I am assuming, from what the Prime Minister said to-day, that they are not going to take that risk? Is he going to remain a member of the Government that is not going to take that risk, that is not going to stand by that policy, that is not going even to promulgate it, but, on the contrary, is going, as the right hon. Gentleman has already done, to repudiate it? Those are two perfectly simple and definite questions, and I think it is very greatly in the public interest that the Prime Minister should answers to them.

The PRIME MINISTER: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, who himself has known the responsibilities of the Under-Secretaryship of State for the Foreign Office, on making one of the most mischievous speeches, delivered for a purely partisan end, that has ever been made by even an irresponsible Member of this House, at a time of very delicate negotiations, when we are about to change, I hope for good, the European outlook. I think that if the Conservative party have really chosen an instrument for this sort of work, they might have shown discretion in the instrument that they chose. What is the accusation? That one of my colleagues, during an election, has made a speech which is not in accordance with the statement I made regarding the purpose of His Majesty's Government in its foreign policy, and it is the right hon. Gentleman who is chosen to reprove my right hon. Friend for that, a gentleman who himself, not as Home Secretary but as the colleague of the Foreign Minister, went to his own constituency and, whilst his Government was quarrelling with France over its Ruhr policy, made a public speech hoping that France was going to be successful. If hon. and right hon.
Gentlemen choose to throw thorns in my path, I should prefer that the person chosen to do it should have a clean record himself. The right hon. Gentleman gets up and says, "We do not quite know what the Prime Minister has said regarding the Home Secretary. We are very anxious to know. Has he repudiated him?" Then towards the end of his speech the cat comes out of the bag, "not" by implication, "that we think very much harm is done, but we want to get the Home Secretary into trouble." There is an election to-morrow. They want to reduce the Labour majority and whilst here, for the purpose of pin pricking the Labour Government and making it more and more difficult for us to change the situation which we inherited from him—whilst that happens here, what is happening at Burnley? What are his agents doing in Burnley? I have received a telegram this afternoon:
Adjournment Motion regarded here as Tory manœuvre to influence Liberal votes.
[Laughter.] I do not grudge that laugh, but it is the next sentence that is serious. Whilst the right hon. Gentleman is so innocent, so anxious that Europe should understand my position, so single minded, so keen in his enthusiasm that no two Ministers should ever speak with different voices, his representatives in Burnley have sent out sandwich men who are now parading Burnley with posters worded "Premier repudiates Mr. Henderson." I am about as thick-skinned a man as any here, but there has been an honourable position in this House that foreign affairs should be kept out of the sphere of mere partisan attacks. His first object has been attained. He has got his sandwich men out in Burnley. What is his second object? He says he is disturbed that some French papers are attacking me. Since when was the right hon. Gentleman disturbed at the attacks of the "Echo de Paris"? During all his term of office, did he ever get a good word from the "Echo de Paris"? He knows perfectly well that when he talks in that way he can only say I am getting what he got. Pertinax! When did the right hon. Gentleman become concerned by the attacks of Pertinax? When did the Tory Government in its foreign policy receive praise from Pertinax? Apparently what was to be a crown on his head is going to become a crown of thorns on mine, now
that he is free to devote his great knowledge of foreign affairs to the criticism of our foreign policy.
I advise the right hon. Gentleman to come up to date. I heartily excuse him to this extent. It is perfectly true that mistakes have been made, such as were made the other day. In his time it would have been serious. In my time it is not. I have telephoned to Paris this afternoon since I knew I should be in the most unfortunate position of having to speak on this subject to-night. The result of inquiry has been to confirm the report which I had already received, and I am informed that a study made of the French Press up to date showed that the majority of papers seemed disposed to drop the subject. What a glorious service he has done to his country to get them to start it again to-morrow. To drop the subject which may be regarded as significant of the general change for the better in the tone of the French Press as regards this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who sent that?"] My informant in Paris. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is he?"] What is the meaning of that interruption? I repeat, my informant in Paris. If hon. Members imagine that my informant in Paris is a person of no weight or no importance, they are very much mistaken regarding the responsibility I consider I hold. I would advise the right hon. Gentleman to come up to date regarding the robustness of the friendship of France at present. Does he wish to jeopardise the good relations between France and ourselves? Is he jealous? What is the purpose? In order first of all to try—he will not succeed—to reduce the Labour majority at Burnley to-morrow. That is his first object. The second object, which he openly confesses at the end of his speech, was to try to get my right hon. Friend to resign his position in the Cabinet. To do that what matters it—that bluff partisan fighter who sacrifices every national and international interest to putting his opponents into an unfortunate position. It is hardly worth the game. What has happened? I was in a difficult position. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are still!"] I am still, thanks very much to this Adjournment Motion. [Laughter.] If that gives any delight to hon. Members opposite, I make a present to them of the cause of the delight. I
have nothing to hide. I have nothing not to confess. If by adding to the difficulties between Great Britain and France at the present time, hon. Members can do a little pin-pricking, a little smart practice, and secure a partisan game, very well, I make them a present of it. What happened? Mr. Henderson, in fighting at Burnley, was apparently under the impression that, as a Minister of the Crown, he could speak as a private person. [Laughter.]

Sir F. HALL: He knows better; he has been there before.

The PRIME MINISTER: Hon. Members laugh. I do not know whether there is any misunderstanding about what I say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all!"] That is his statement. The "Times" newspaper to-day has repeated the statement, that Mr. Henderson is under the impression that, although a Minister of the Crown, he can speak as a private Member of this House.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks it is advisable that Members of the Cabinet should be under the impression that they can speak as individual private Members of the House of Commons?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Member's brain is much faster than mine. I was coming to that point, only a little more slowly. That is Mr. Henderson's statement. Of course, he is wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Of course, he is wrong. Ministers of the Crown, members of Administrations, must speak with the seriousness and with the reserve of their position. If I had been responsible for the right hon. Gentleman who has just made his great speech, I would have had something to say to him after it. Will not this House, on all sides, stop seizing opportunities on such things as that. Every Member knows that there has not been a Government that ever sat on these benches but had to face this trouble. I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) having to use all his nimbleness and all his resources, which are far greater than mine, to get himself out of precisely the difficulty I am in now. If anybody could be excused, if it was ever justified on the part of any party leader to put his telescope
to his Nelson blind eye, it is justifiable with respect to a body of men and women such as I have around me, occupying this bench for the first time. I have told the House what my view is. If the right hon. Gentleman's view is that he wants resignations, and so on, I say that he will not get them so far as I am concerned. Faults! We have all committed faults; I have, and shall do so again. I say definitely—and everybody who has been in the position I am in, my right hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs will back me in saying this—that Cabinet Ministers must speak with reserve and with a sense of responsibility. What happened? My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs put a question to me. He asked: "Is this speech an expression of the policy of the Government?" I said "No!" I said: "The statement I made on foreign affairs is the statement of the policy of the Government, and by that I stand." Surely, that was sufficient, unless, of course, one is going to be pursued vindictively, unless the Burnley election is of more importance than everything else. If that is not so, I am bound to confess that every sentence that fell from the right hon. Gentleman's lips, every twist and twine of his argument, every piece of information that he used, indicated to me not the friendly remonstrance of one who has shared the responsibility of the Foreign Office, but the words and the attack of a reckless irresponsible partisan.
9.0 P.M.
The House has pressed me so often, that I am going to take my revenge out of it by reading what I have said to it before. And it is the policy of His Majesty's Government. This is what I have in my mind, to try to get into friendly relations with France, and to try to re-start the negotiations which, when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Foreign Office, had come to a deadlock with Italy. I said that if matters were pursued in the spirit that I was trying to express,
before the year's end France and Great Britain should be whole-heartedly co-operating with every nation in Europe in establishing the conditions of a European settlement.
I went on to say:
I can say nothing on those large questions until I get the Reports of the Reparation
Sub-Committees which are working hard in Paris and Berlin. Reparations remain the first bar to a general settlement.
I am not going to look twenty years ahead. I am not going to look ten years ahead. I remember once from the box opposite urging my right hon. Friend to be a realist, and I am going to try, standing here, to take the advice that I gave to my right hon. Friend. I want to be a realist, and therefore I am not going to raise a ten or twenty years hence problem.
As soon as these Committees have declared their decision and the Reparation Commission has considered and pronounced upon it I think the time will have come"—
That is the time will have come then—
for a complete survey of all the problems, debts and everything else, with the intention of attacking them in detail and clearing them out of the way.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he spent weary minutes or hours in reading what I said, but he could get no indication of policy. Did he overlook that sentence?

Mr. McNEILL: In the course of my research I read that passage, and paused for a moment to consider whether it could possibly be upon that passage that the right hon. Gentleman founded his statement when he spoke about revision. Now that he has read it, I cannot see the remotest connection between that and revision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it again!"]

The PRIME MINISTER: It all depends upon the word. The right hon. Gentleman takes the use of a word which is a very imperfect word, a word which he knows well is far more prejudicial to fears abroad than anything else I am responsible for the Government and for myself.

Mr. McNEILL: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the passage which he has read did not go one iota beyond what was being done by his predecessors?

The PRIME MINISTER: That does not matter. His predecessors may have been blundering on for a bit, but if hon. Members are going to insist, in this somewhat vacuous way, on using the name "Henderson" as an interjection on every occasion, let me say this, that to-morrow
morning the French newspapers, "Pertinax" and the others, will not be using the name "Henderson," they will be using a name somewhat more like my own, beginning with an indication that its owner comes of a Highland family. The Henderson affair has been straightened out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where!"] I know what I am talking about. The Henderson affair has been straightened out. Of course, the Nationalist papers are going for us and, of course, they will go for us for the next 10 days, thanks to hon. Members opposite. The affair which has not been straightened out, but which is about to begin, if I may say so, is the McNeill affair. The time will have come for a complete re-survey of the problem, the problem being what the right hon. Gentleman knows, or, at any rate, ought to know.
The final aim of the Foreign Secretary must be to come to an agreement upon armaments. That is the test of a successful Foreign Secretary. I have had that at the back of my mind. I feel quite sure that if things are properly handled France and the other nations of Europe will see that the great security of a nation is not in armaments, but in the justice of the position it holds in the world. I am going to use all the energy I have got to increase the representative character and authority of the League of Nations. I am hoping the League of Nations will be used more and more as the international body for the settlement of questions that two nations themselves find it impossible to settle direct. Many opportunities will arise for giving that belief of mine an opportunity of being tested and I shall take them. Germany must come in. I hope Russia will come in, too. We ought all to be in."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1924; cols. 771–772, Vol. 169.]
That is our policy. Hon. Members have invited me, as the Foreign Secretary, to state my policy in terms of my immediate problem. If hon. Members desire to put in a background of their own to that policy, they are welcome to do it.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: The Home Secretary has done it.

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that the country is watching to-day the kind of action that the Labour Government and the Labour Foreign Secretary are subject to by hon. Members opposite. As I said, wherever any doubt has been raised regarding any statement made by my right hon. Friend Mr. Henderson, that doubt has been removed. May I appeal
to the House? I have made a warm attack. Certainly the only attack that could have been made after the speech that was delivered was a warm attack.

Mr. McNEILL: I do not resent it in the least.

The PRIME MINISTER: I never assumed that the right hon. Gentleman did. I am only conscious of it myself, because I think, especially in times like these, a Foreign Secretary has very rarely been subject to such an attack as has been made on me by the right hon. Gentleman, who himself has held the responsible position of Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I hope that neither any hon. Member opposite, nor anybody in any other part of this House, is going to increase difficulties that are bad enough already. From this side, below the Gangway, an attack may come. They are not responsible. There is a great deal of obtuse understanding. [Laughter.] I admire the cleverness of that laughter. Hon. Members below the Gangway may attack, because they are not responsible for the mess which we have inherited. If there is any party in this House that at this moment, when there is a chance of settling problems that baffled them, of disentangling ravelments that they have created, of being generous to faults and to mistakes honestly made, whatever the degree of blundering may have been, it is hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, who should approach this Debate in that frame of mind.

Commander BELLAIRS: My right hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Ronald McNeill) made a reasoned and restrained speech and has been met by rhetoric for an answer. He quoted from Mr. Henderson's speech. Mr. Henderson said he wanted the public to understand where the Government stood. As the "Daily Herald" has been careful to remind the Prime Minister in to-day's issue, Mr. Henderson was stating the policy of the Labour party, a policy which was promulgated by the Prime Minister himself in his manifesto of November, 1923. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
The Labour party stands, therefore, for policy of international co-operation through a strengthened and enlarged League of Nations, the settlement of disputes by conciliation and judicial arbitration, and the
immediate calling by the British Government of an International Conference (including Germany on terms of equality) to deal with the revision of the Versailles Treaty.
That was the manifesto of the Prime Minister three months ago. The right hon. Gentleman now pours scorn on that word "revision." It is the word he used in the manifesto I have quoted. I want to bring home to the right hon. Gentleman that, if a mischievous speech has been made, it has not been made by the right hon. Member for Canterbury. It was made in an election, for election purposes, by Mr. Henderson, the Home Secretary. The Prime Minister said it was not passed by the Cabinet. That is all his answer. He, of course, condemns the speech. In previous cases of that kind, the injudicious speech has been met by the resignation of the Cabinet Minister. Let me refer to a particular case, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was Prime Minister and Mr. Montagu resigned in 1922. Mr. Montagu's indiscretion consisted simply in authorising the Viceroy of India to publish a document, which was called a manifesto, stating India's position in regard to peace with Turkey. But what Mr. Henderson has done has been something affecting 32 nations in Europe, something which may be a bomb of dissension among the 32 nations. I shall not labour that point, because my right hon. and learned Friend has already dealt with it in so full and able a manner. In the Debate on Mr. Montagu's resignation, when the Adjournment was moved, the present Secretary of State for the Colonies said:
We shall be able to draw one conclusion, and that is that the trade unions could not be conducted on more loose lines than the Cabinet.
What then is to be said of the present Cabinet? The Minister went on to say of Lord Curzon:
If that was his view at that moment, what excuse or justification is there for Lord Curzon not immediately bringing it to the notice of the Cabinet? That, after all, is what the mass of the British public want to know.
Similarly we want to know, why has the Prime Minister ignored the speech of his colleague, which was delivered on Saturday at Burnley, and why, at Question Time to-day, Wednesday, apparently no
communication had passed between him and his colleague at Burnley? I said just now that the "Daily Herald" commented on the situation to-day. Let me quote that comment:
There could be no need for the Cabinet to authorise any Minister to declare for a policy which has been authorised by the party throughout the land. If there was any indiscretion it was not on Mr. Henderson's part.
Earlier in the article there is this:
We are convinced that there has been a misunderstanding, due to Mr. MacDonald's lack of clearness in dealing with the incident.
That is from the organ of the Labour party, and it refers to the incident as an "apparent divergence of opinion." I want to deal next with the constitutional practice, because the right hon. Gentleman—to use his own words—has made a most mischievous speech in abandoning the constitutional doctrines of this country in failing to look upon Mr. Henderson's offence as a serious one. Lord Esher in 1909 gave a lecture on "The times of Queen Victoria." He said:
The ultimate decision was a minor consideration, compared with the principle of Cabinet responsibility as against individual ministerial action. For this the Queen fought steadily all her life. So watchful was she, that often we find her calling the attention of the Prime Minister of the day, not to the action, but to the speech of some colleague who, in her view, appeared to compromise the responsibility of the Government as a whole by some unwary or unauthorised declaration. It was her opinion, expressed on many occasions, that if a Minister made speeches in the country he should not outstep the limits of Cabinet agreement, and that he should not be permitted to pledge himself to a policy without at the same time pledging his colleagues. That the Queen was right in her interpretation of constitutional doctrine need not be argued, as everyone of her Prime Ministers supported her view.
What took place in 1851 in regard to Lord Palmerston? He was dismissed from his office as Secretary for Foreign Affairs because, in an unofficial interview with the French Ambassador, he expressed his approval of Napoleon the Third's action in overthrowing the Republic. In a Debate in this House Lord John Russell said:
In this matter, which was of the utmost importance—namely, that of giving the moral influence and support of England to the Acts of the President of the French Republic—it seems to me that it was an affair so great that the opinion, not only of the Prime
Minister, but of the Cabinet, should have been taken, and that no such opinion should have been expressed without their concurrence, and without the sanction of the Crown.
It seems to me that it only makes Mr. Henderson's offence worse that he used this speech for party purposes in an election. The Prime Minister seemed to throw himself upon the mercy of the House because of the inexperience of his colleagues. Mr. Henderson has had experience. He was in the War Cabinet and he had committed one indiscretion already in the year 1917, over the Stockholm Conference. He was then door-matted and dismissed. There was, therefore, every reason for the Prime Minister to ask his colleague to exercise caution in what he said or to muzzle him in some other way. In these matters you cannot possibly mate the impulses of a schoolgirl with the responsibilities of a Cabinet Minister. After all, Mr. Henderson went on to explain what the policy of the Government was. It was to create an atmosphere, he said. That is very desirable. But what was the atmosphere that Mr. Henderson was creating by throwing this bomb into Europe? He was creating an atmosphere of mustard gas. We must have a better answer and a better defence than that which the Prime Minister has yet given of his colleagues, for he has given us nothing yet to which the Leader of the Opposition can possibly feel needs a reply.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not concerned about the influence of this incident upon the Burnley Election. I am not for the moment concerned about the indiscretions of Mr. Henderson. I have known Ministers who have committed indiscretions, though not as serious as this, and I know that it is not always easy to keep an experienced team together in order. I am not at all sure that I did not give trouble once or twice to my chief. I think he used to scan my speeches with a good deal of anxiety and a good deal of relief at the end when there was nothing that would call for the attention of the House of Commons. But this is undoubtedly a very grave indiscretion. When you are making speeches about domestic politics, well, the matter is explained. It is something which is amongst ourselves. When
a statement is made which affects 33 Powers—suspicious, very touchy, very ready to believe that we are out for some mischief against their interests—nobody knows better than my right hon. Friend what embarrassment that must be to the Foreign Office. As my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down pointed out, in this case Mr. Henderson cannot take advantage of the very legitimate plea put to my right hon. Friend for colleagues who are new to administration. Experience does count in these matters in the way of restraint. Mr. Henderson was a member of two Governments, not merely of the Government of which I was the head. He was a member of the Administration of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) was the head. He has had experience of being corrected once before for an indiscretion. Therefore it is rather serious.
What I am more concerned about is the statement of the Prime Minister—his expressions of the views of the Government with regard to the declarations made by Mr. Henderson. Whatever obscurity there was in the answer which was given on Monday—and I confess, although I thought I thoroughly understood what my right hon. Friend meant, I wish he had made it a little more clear—I do not think he has left any doubt in the minds of anyone to-night what are the views of the Government. Mr. Henderson, after all, committed the Government, in the absence of a repudiation, to a very serious declaration of policy. No one knows better than my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friends on the Opposition Bench what an explosive word the word "revision" is. There are certain words one has to avoid in dealing with foreign Powers, and revision is a very dangerous one. Whatever one may think about the Treaty of Versailles, it is the basis of the very existence, the national existence, of certain new nations in Europe. Take Poland—its basis is the Treaty of Versailles. That is its charter. That is where it begins its new life. Czecho-Slovakia is also acknowledged in the Treaty of Versailles. I think Jugoslavia is as well. Take the boundaries of France—Alsace-Lorraine, a subject which has tormented Europe for 50 years, has provoked many wars, and the most terrible war in the world. The Treaty of Versailles has fixed the status of Alsace
Lorraine.Take the Rhine and Belgium. To use the word "revision" is the most dangerous word that any Minister could possibly use in reference to the Treaty.
It is inconceivable that a man of the experience of Mr. Henderson should have said such a thing. It is one thing to say it as a private Member. He may be in favour of revision. I am not taunting my right hon. Friend with the fact that, when he was a private Member, he used the word "revision" and shuns it now. He is right. He has to deal with the facts as they are. He has to persuade, to conciliate, to bring these people together, and therefore to go to them, with the revolver of revision in his hand is madness. May I point out to my right hon. Friend who very chivalrously defended Mr. Henderson, that I am not complaining of that. I think it is what one would expect as the chief of the Government. He very skilfully attacked my right hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury Mr. R. McNeill in order, really, to protect his own colleague. I have seen that done before, and the worse the case the more vigorously you do it. I am not complaining of that at all, after all, we are here to consider, as a House of Commons responsible to the Nation, what this means, unless there is a clear, definite, distinct repudiation. I can well understand my right hon. Friend not using that word, and I think it would be rather unfair to force him to do it, so long as it is thoroughly understood that the declaration is not a declaration which represents the policy of the Government. Mr. Henderson did not casually use the word in a speech, saying "The Treaty of Versailles is a bad one and ought to be revised. It is not in accordance with the principles of the Sermon on the Mount or the 14 points." My right hon. Friend, before he has done with his job, will do a great many things not consistent with either of those, but, unless I am mistaken, he will do a good many things which are inconsistent with the doctrines of a different kind, and that is, the manifesto of the Labour party. He started well. He will gain from? experience.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: As you have.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly, I should be ashamed if I had not. I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has not given
himself an opportunity of learning. What did Mr. Henderson do? He is a principal Secretary of State. He makes a speech in which he elaborately lays down a policy; not a sentence in a vague phrase; not the sort of thing that might escape you in the excitement of an election, and which you live to regret. Not at all. It was something that was undoubtedly very carefully worded. In fact, they were not Mr. Henderson's words. Not by any means. Not if I know him. I cannot say who wrote them for him, but at first it looked like an elaborate carefully prepared declaration, every word of which had been considered. What does he do? He declares for a revision of the Treaty of Versailles on three points. One point relates to the whole of the economic clauses and another to the boundaries. Can anyone imagine a Minister, in the present condition of Europe, proposing a revision of the whole of the boundaries that have been written in blood? [Interruption.] Yes—in blood. Then comes the revision of reparations. There is not a country in Europe that will not be alarmed unless that declaration is repudiated. That was not all. He says this is not some ideal, not something to walk towards, not a sort of star to which he has hitched his wagon, but that it is the next step. He uses the word "immediate"; he commits the Government to taking immediate steps without loss of time. Surely it ought to be made quite clear that this is not the policy of the Government. If it were believed in Europe that this is the policy of the Government, then farewell to every effort made by my right hon. Friend to secure anything in the nature of conciliation, agreement and some sort of settlement. He knows it perfectly well. Take reparations. If you talk about a revision of the clauses as to reparations, you will not get France to move one single yard towards you. Ask them to reconsider the figures; ask them to reconsider methods; ask them to reconsider the time; ask them to reconsider securities and they will do it, but say to them "Revise the reparation clauses" and they will not meet to discuss it, and my right hon. Friend knows that. What is really important is that it should be known in Europe that this is not the policy of His Majesty's Government.
Honestly, I am not very much concerned about the fact that a Minister has been guilty of an indiscretion, even
a Minister with whom I disagree entirely. After all, he is not a Member of the House. We could have been much more severe with him if he had been here. We could have talked to him as he ought to be talked to, but he is not a Member of the House, and therefore I am not concerned so much for the moment with that aspect, but I am concerned as one who had some share in the framing of the Treaty of Versailles. It is not a question of whether it is sacrosanct or not—I am not here to defend every clause in the Treaty of Versailles, and I have never done it—but you have to deal with 33 Powers, and if my right hon. Friend goes to a conference, with the Labour party manifesto in his pocket, he knows perfectly well he has to compromise every step of the way in order to make any progress at all. I am not going to taunt him if he makes an agreement which is inconsistent with something which he said in a General Election. I shall simply look at the fact that he has had to do his best with regard to the infinite variety of fiercely conflicting interests and prejudices and animosities which exist in Europe. But it is important to him, as he is the Foreign Secretary and represents this country, it is important to this land—and if it is important to Britain, it is important to the world, because without Britain there will be no settlement in Europe—it is important that it should be definitely known that this elaborate, carefully studied, detailed declaration of the intention of the Government does not represent that intention. I liked the speech of my right hon. Friend, because in spite of some rather irrelevant, but perfectly justifiable, flagellation which he gave to my right hon. Friend opposite—whether the right hon. Gentleman is guilty now or not, he deserves it for other things, and I am glad he has got it on general principles—but apart from that, to me the really operative part of the Prime Minister's speech is that in which, for the first time, he gave an emphatic "No" to the question of whether this speech represented the policy of the Government, and I say, for my part, and I think I can speak for my hon. Friends here, that we are satisfied with that as a complete representation of the policy of the Government.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I, too, am very glad that the Prime Minister has had the opportunity this evening of giving an emphatic "No" in place of what the "Daily Herald" admitted was the very ambiguous answer given last Monday, as to whether the Government approves of the policy and methods proposed by the Home Secretary. Further than that, an emphasis which is very much needed in connection with our Debates has been laid on the peculiar nature of the word "revision." I went into the newspaper room of the House to see the French papers of yesterday and to-day, and in every one there was a paragraph dealing with Mr. Henderson's speech or with the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the question put by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). Every French paper had a reference to the matter, and the one word which created disturbance was the word "revision." The Prime Minister entirely mistakes the reason why the Opposition wish to raise this matter to-night. We wished to make it perfectly clear, and to let him make it perfectly clear, that revision in the sense in which it is understood throughout Europe is not the policy of the Government. It would be disastrous to the success of his efforts, which we on this side of the House are anxious to see crowned with success quite as much as anybody on the other side, if the methods which he has hitherto adopted are not pursued by himself and all his colleagues in the future. His method, as he outlined it to-night, is to refuse to be drawn into declarations of foreign policy beyond the immediate necessities. That is absolutely right, and we hope he will stick to that method, because along those lines there is hope of a better settlement in Europe, but if the one Secretary of State, the one Cabinet Minister who has had the high and responsible conduct of foreign affairs in a previous Administration, departs from the Prime Minister's methods, departs from the policy and the line he has pursued and goes about the country making grandiloquent speeches as to what the Labour Government are going to do to revise the Treaty in this respect and that, long before those questions are approached, then that colleague of the Prime Minister will wreck the chances of peace and settlement in Europe.
The object of the Opposition is not to indict the Prime Minister for his policy but to indict in the strongest and most emphatic terms, the most dangerous and provocative speech of the Home Secretary at Burnley, a speech, as I say, made by the one member of the Government who has had responsibility for foreign affairs in a previous Government and a speech which, supported by the "Daily Herald,' supported and cheered by many hon. Members on the benches opposite, can but lead to the failure of the hopes of the Prime Minister and of every patriotic British citizen for a better settlement in Europe. It is not partisanship that makes us raise an important question of this sort. Any Opposition would be wanting in its duty if, when a Cabinet Minister makes a declaration of policy, not on a matter concerning his own Department, but on a matter concerning the Department of one of his colleagues, of an important European character, it did not take that up and point out the great inconsistency between that declaration and those of the Prime Minister. The really vital sentence in the Prime Minister's speech to-night was this: He said that, when he answered the question of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs on Monday, he said "No!" This Debate need never have taken place if it had been a simple "No" on Monday, and if, on that occasion, the Prime Minister had said: "I will ascertain from the Home Secretary whether he has been correctly reported, and, if so, I will make it perfectly clear to the French and Italian Governments that the policy which the Home Secretary is reported to have adumbrated on behalf of the Government at Burnley is not my policy, and is not my method."
If he had said that, there would have been no need for this Debate, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has been abundantly justified in raising this question to-night. It was absolutely essential in the public interest that it should be raised, and, so far from it having been mischievous, I think the speeches of the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs have both tended to show that we, of all parties, are prepared to support the Prime Minister on the lines, which he repeated to-night, of his
original speech in this House, as to the methods he was pursuing and the aims he had in view, but that we are not prepared, either as a Party or as a nation, to follow the methods or the aims advocated by the Home Secretary.

Captain BERKELEY: I think the House must be very grateful, in one sense, to the right hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill), who moved the Adjournment, for giving it this opportunity of ascertaining definitely the policy of the Government with regard to the speech of Mr. Henderson at Burnley. I am bound to say that, after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the remarks of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), while very well deserved, were perhaps rather in the nature of beating a dead horse. I do not mean his remarks with regard to the political aspect of the subject generally, but his remarks with regard to the grave indiscretion of Mr. Henderson. Perhaps we may put aside for the rest of the Debate the action of the Home Secretary, in order to devote a few moments to the question of the Treaty of Versailles itself. It is a somewhat misunderstood document, that Treaty. What has been the cause of this stormy affair has been a misuse of phraseology by the Home Secretary. He has used a most unfortunate word, but the Treaty of Versailles, as many people seem to forget, contains within itself the machinery for the reconsideration of any obsolete clauses or of any clauses that may be found to be unworkable. The Treaty of Versailles and the other Treaties of Peace are a very great improvement on previous Treaties, in that they do contain within themselves the machinery of their own—I shall be very careful not to use the wrong word—reconsideration. The Assembly of the League of Nations is specifically empowered to consider and advise, which is more than merely considering, the various signatories, not only of the Treaties of Peace, but of any other Treaties which may, in their opinion, seem to be obsolete, as to the remodelling of the clauses in question that ought to take place.
One of the curious attributes of political science has always seemed to me to
be the manner in which instruments which in themselves at first seem either reactionary or harsh become, in time, interpreted in such a manner as to work substantial good. I have no doubt that when the common people of this country first had the opportunity of studying Magna Charta, they did not find a great deal in it that was really, devoted to securing the liberties of the subject, as we understand them to-day. Magna Charta, of course, notoriously was never meant to do anything of the kind. Magna Charta was a document that was meant to secure the privileges of a certain governing class, but the course of judicial interpretation and the softening influence of time have made Magna Charta a transferable term for the liberties of the country, and I do not think it is a too adventurous flight into the realm of prophecy to believe that the Treaties of Peace which were concluded at Versailles, by reason of their creation of the League of Nations, and its interpretative organ, the Permanent Court of International Justice, will, in course of time, be found to work substantially well.
I should like, if I may do so with the fullest sense of the insignificance of my own opinion, to associate myself very warmly with what was said, both by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, that the Treaty of Versailles is, for good or ill, the public law of Europe. That fundamental fact about the Treaty of Versailles is that it must be recognised, and anyone, be he private citizen or Cabinet Minister, or group of Cabinet Ministers, who neglects that fundamental fact, will come to serious grief in dealing with foreign countries. Any suggestion that it is otherwise could do nothing except harm, would impair the work of the League of Nations, to which the right hon. Gentleman's Government has given such unqualified approval and support, and, more than that, it would put back for 10 years, perhaps for half a century, the work of limitation and reduction of armaments, which is an essential preliminary to what people loosely term disarmament, and which is also—and this, from the point of view of persons living to-day, is equally important—an essential preliminary to any large measure of trade
revival on the Continent of Europe. I do not wish to say anything on this matter in the nature of censure upon the Government. I supported the Motion for the Adjournment, because I considered, and I still consider, it was most properly made, and that it was a matter which urgently needed to be debated on the floor of the House. But I agree fully with what the late Prime Minister said, that the assurances of the present Prime Minister are satisfactory, and I am glad to observe, from the speech of my hon. Friend opposite, that they are regarded as satisfactory on the other side of the House. In those circumstances, I will congratulate, if I may, the right hon. Gentleman upon having made his attitude unmistakably plain, and I venture to express the hope that Members of his Ministry will take this serious lesson in foreign affairs to 10.0 P.M.
heart.

10.0 P.M.

Captain Viscount CURZON: I only want to say a few words in this Debate as one who has always strongly sympathised with the point of view of the French. I have not at times seen eye to eye with Members of His Majesty's late Government. I am one of those who have always taken the view that it is our bounden duty, without necessarily tying ourselves to the coat-tails of France, to make it quite certain that we stand by her. Hon. Members on the opposite benches, I know, will take an opposite view, but that is my view. Let hon. Members consider for one moment what would be the effect of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the candidate for Burnley upon them if they were Frenchmen. Surely, if they would only consider it impartially for a moment, their opinion would be, as I am perfectly certain it has been the opinion of a great many people outside this House, that His Majesty's present Government stand for a revision of the Treaty of Versailles. I regard the Treaty of Versailles as the sheet-anchor of Europe. If you weigh it the ship of Europe will drift, and, once the ship starts drifting, it will drift on to lee-shore. I do submit it is up to everyone in this House—and in this I appeal to hon. Members of the Socialist party—to stand together for the Treaty of Versailles. It may require amendment and the re-casting of some of its features in the future, but for Heaven's sake do not talk about revising it. The right
hon. Gentleman opposite made a speech to which I listened with amazement. It was an arrogant speech, a speech full of bluster, and one which did not sound like sane argument. It sounded like the speech of a man furiously annoyed and indignant. Why all this indignation? Why all this annoyance? My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench on this side was, after all, only saying what I am perfectly certain the majority of people have been saying outside. They have been wanting to know whether His Majesty's Government are, in fact, going to stand for the revision of the Treaty of Versailles, or not. It must be remembered that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the candidate for Burnley does not stand alone. Wherever there is a Socialist meeting you will hear speeches advocating, in terms of the utmost possible enthusiasm, not only revision, but immediate revision, as the right hon. Member the candidate for Burnley has advocated. We say that there is never smoke without fire, and if not only the right hon. Gentleman, but all those enthusiastic speakers who support the Socialist party up and down the country, go spinning the same yarn, surely there must be something in it, and we want to have it definitely proved to us beyond all shadow of doubt that there is nothing in it. I heard the right hon. Gentleman opposite say to-night, and I heard him say the other day, "I have stated the policy of His Majesty's Government, and what I have stated is the policy." What I have been waiting to hear from him is that what the right hon. Gentleman the candidate for Burnley stated was not the policy of His Majesty's Government. I want him to say so in categorical terms. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has said so!"] I have listened to everything he has said on the subject, but I have not heard him deny it in categorical terms. What he says is, "I have stated the policy of His Majesty's Government, and by that I stand." I have heard him say that several times, but I have not heard him say. "The policy advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the candidate for Burnley is not our policy." Surely it is not too much to ask of the Prime Minister that he will allay all doubt, as he could allay all doubt if he would only make that statement.
The right hon. Gentleman accused us of pin-pricking and sharp practice in order to reduce the Labour majority in Burnley. No one knows whether the Labour party is going to get a majority or a minority in Burnley. I hope they get a minority, but, really, Burnley is beside the point. We on these benches did not start this hare running. It was the right hon. Gentleman the candidate for Burnley. He cannot be surprised, and they cannot be surprised, if we are really profoundly anxious. There are right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench who are French scholars, as great as any in this country. There are hon. Members there who know France. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty knows it, and knows what I say is true, that real, genuine anxiety is felt throughout France as the result of the speech at Burnley. It is up to the Government to make it right here, and say, "The right hon. Gentleman the candidate for Burnley did not express our views. We do not agree with what he said." That is all I ask. I still hope to see a Member rise from the Treasury Bench, and make it clear to us, beyond all shadow of doubt, right throughout the Empire, and, indeed, throughout the world, that the Government do not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman who is their candidate at Burnley stated, namely, that the policy of the Government was the revision of the Versailles Treaty. There are right hon. and hon. Members of the Socialist party who have experience of foreign affairs, and I am perfectly certain they would wish the matter to be cleared up beyond doubt, for doubt has given rise to many wars, and will give rise to wars in the days to come.

Viscount WOLMER: I rise only for a few minutes to protest against the tone in which the Prime Minister spoke in replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. McNeill). I listened to the whole of my right hon. Friend's speech, and I confess I was perfectly amazed at the tone the Prime Minister thought fit to adopt in speaking of it to the House Here is a statement made by a leading Cabinet Minister which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said, bore every evidence of a deliberately-worded
and carefully thought-out statement, a statement which he prefixed with the declaration that it was desirable that the country should know where the Government stood. Mr. Henderson is, furthermore, not what the Prime Minister said, a new Member of the Government but he is one of the few Members of the Government who have had previous Cabinet experience and previous experience in diplomatic negotiations. That statement was in conflict with what we on this side of the House believed to be the policy of the Government. I say my right hon. Friend was not only perfectly entitled but was perfectly right to raise this issue in the House. I venture to say that if there had been a Conservative Government in power and if the Home Secretary had made a statement of that sort, hon. Members opposite would have had no hesitation in moving the Adjournment of the House and raising this precise issue, and they would have been perfectly right.
For the Prime Minister to come here and be indignant and lash himself into a fury because we have asked for a declaration of policy is treating the House of Commons with contempt. It comes with singular ill-grace from a party which boasts of being the champion of open diplomacy and the champion of democracy, which last year was so eloquent in pleading for the liberties and rights of the House of Commons. If the House of Commons is not to know what the policy of the Government is, who is to know? I venture to say that the Prime Minister was doing nothing but electioneering himself in beating himself into that fury in replying to my right hon. Friend. Those hon. Members who heard the speech know that a more carefully or cautiously worded statement it would have been impossible to conceive. He deliberately explained that he was not pressing the Prime Minister to say anything that would be inconvenient to his policy or anything that would jeopardise the negotiations he is at present carrying on. I think that if the Prime Minister is to take it as a personal insult whenever we ask for information on Government policy, then we are to understand that the policy of the Labour party is no longer that of open diplomacy, and that it is no longer even in favour of a
democratic tone in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister even went so far as to take offence at the fact that my right hon. Friend had used the term "revision of the Treaty." It was not my right hon. Friend who first used that term. That was the term used by Mr. Henderson himself, and if, as the Prime Minister said, that was a dangerous and misleading term, he has to thank Mr. Henderson for it, and nobody else. I think this Debate has done good if in no other way than this, that I hope it has convinced hon. Members opposite that they have got to bring their policy to the tribunal of this House, and, whatever they may have done in opposition, we are not prepared to allow decisions of this sort to be taken and announced outside this House, but will assert our right to challenge the matter and bring it under Debate in every constitutional manner.

Mr. BALDWIN: I only propose to detain the House a very few minutes, but I do not think the Debate ought to be brought to a conclusion without a few remarks from this Bench. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a very bitter attack upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill)—an attack which I think was hardly justified by the tone of my right hon. Friend's speech. I think the Prime Minister, if he reads my right hon. Friend's speech to-morrow morning, will see that it was very carefully worded and that he also made his speech in such a manner as to make the Prime Minister's reply as easy as possible. As the Prime Minister has now come in, I repeat that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that the Prime Minister's attack was largely due to the fact that he was in a very difficult situation. No one can sympathise more than I do with the burden of responsibility on the Prime Minister. Anyone who is suffering under a great burden of responsibility is perhaps prone to see things in an attack which do not exist and which are not meant. The truth was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), who said that if the categorical reply given by the Prime Minister this evening had been given on Monday afternoon, the Adjournment would never have been asked for and this Debate would never have taken
place. The Adjournment was not asked for through any desire to pin-prick, or with any view to an election. It was asked for solely to get a reply on this point, which we have now obtained, a reply which, I think, will be received throughout Europe with a great sense of relief. We on this Bench should be the last, and I do not believe any party in the House of Commons would do anything wilfully at the present to make more difficult the task of whatever Government may sit on these Benches in trying to straighten out the tangle in European affairs.
But there is another aspect—and I will be very brief on this; it is the aspect of Cabinet responsibility. Here, again, I was not moved by the Prime Minister's ad misericordiam appeal, because we should not have raised this question had the Minister concerned been one of less experience. After all, a man is called a Home Secretary to show him that he deals with home affairs, and for a Home Secretary to talk as he did of foreign affairs is quite as dangerous as for a Minister of Labour to talk about finance. If this Debate has done nothing else, it will have brought home to Ministers, present, past and prospective, that no deviation can be made from that strict line of conduct which is demanded by the responsibility that one Cabinet Minister holds to another and to the Cabinet and to its chief. If it brings that home to them, this Debate will not have been held in vain. The House is very jealous of its honour and of that aspect of its honour which affects those who sit on the Front Ministerial Bench. Into the reasons for the growth of that sense of responsibility this is hardly the time to go, but it must be perfectly obvious to every Member of this House that if Members of the Cabinet are allowed to speak at large their own private views on home affairs, and much more on foreign affairs, they may create a false impression before the electorate at home, and again, and what is far worse, a false impression of the intentions of the Government in foreign affairs which today are of such a critical nature. I assured the House that I would only speak for a few minutes, and I have kept my word. I am glad, indeed, that by this Debate we have succeeded in getting the assurance of the Prime Minister; in
consequence of that, so far as I and my Friends are concerned on this side, we do not propose to ask the House to divide.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: I beg to move:
That this House is of opinion that the necessary steps should forthwith be taken for the abolition of any means limit in the application of Old Age Pensions.
In submitting such a Resolution as this to the consideration and judgment of the House, I am deeply sensible of the fact that this Motion lacks the charm of novelty. This is the fourth occasion within the last three years on which a Motion of this kind has been debated on the Floor of this House. I venture, however, to claim that what it lacks in novelty it gains in urgency. It is indisputable that the beneficent purposes of the Old Age Pensions Act have been grievously vitiated by various harassing restrictions and restrictive Regulations within which the administration of the Act is enclosed. When the aged toilers come through life's vissicitudes to that period of life to which they are entitled to ask for a pension, they find themselves subjected to most irksome and ruthless disabilities.
If, for example, they have grown-up sons and daughters who give them any help, as is only right and natural, in the form either of money or kind, the value of these gifts is strictly assessed and debited as income to the pensioners, and a corresponding reduction is made from their pensions. If, again, the pensioners seek to add to their standard of subsistence by resorting either to poultry-keeping or the cultivation of their garden or allotment, they are required to make a very strict return of the number of fowls they keep, their egg-producing capacity, and the nature and quantity of the produce of the garden or allotment, and the commercial value of these commodities are assessed and a corresponding deduction made from their pension.
It is only fair to acknowledge that the pensions officers are not responsible for
these exacting and inquisitorial investigations. They have to carry out the Regulations as prescribed by the Act. It is the Act itself that is at fault. It is the Act that requires amendment, for as at present constituted it undoubtedly operates to the advantage of the improvident and disadvantage of the thrifty. Let me use a homely illustration. Take two men of the same age engaged by the same firm, and in receipt of the same wage. The one man joins a trade union or a friendly society, and week by week pays his contribution in as a provision for the time when health and strength shall have failed him and he is unable to follow his daily work. The other man makes no attempt in the way of provision for old age. He joins no friendly society. He is content to spend every penny of his wage as it comes to him. What happens when these two men arrive at the age of 70 and apply for their old age pensions? The one man who has shown himself to be absolutely improvident receives the whole pension on the ground that he has absolutely nothing, while the other who has been practising all his life the much-vaunted virtue of thrift finds himself penalised by the deduction of his superannuation income from the amount of his weekly pension. Such a statement is absolutely indefensible. I will recall what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hillhead Division of Glasgow (Sir R. Horne) said when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and taking part in a Debate on a Motion of this kind. Here are the right hon. Gentleman's words:
It certainly appears illogical, because people have saved a little, and have been thrifty and put something by, that therefore they should be denied that which a man gets who has paid no attention to his future.
It was a most interesting thing to hear a Scotsman praise the value of thrift. He also condemned what I have referred to as a bad principle. The object of my motion is to eliminate that bad principle which operates to the advantage of the thriftless, and to the disadvantage of the thrifty. I advance another plea in this connection. It is a well known fact that there are many employers of labour who are anxious to make some provision for their aged workers, for the men and women who have grown old and grey in their service, in order to enable them to
retire in their old age with a superannuation grant, but they are deterred from doing so by the knowledge that their generosity would be both the cause and the occasion for a reduced pension. Let us consider for a moment how this re-acts on the industry to the disadvantage of the community. I recently read a striking article by the hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), who pointed out how the War had affected the whole industrial situation. He writes:
When the young fellows went to the War the old man remained behind to take their places, and having themselves secured the standard of life which a full wage or salary earning made possible, they found it difficult to fall out again at a time when the cost of living is so enormously high. As a result we have tens of thousands of men walking the streets in enforced idleness drawing unemployment benefit and guardians' relief, and tens of thousands of old men doing their level best to hold on to their jobs, because they have nothing to fall back upon, and the Old Age Pension does not suffice to maintain them.
My right hon. Friend agrees that the deletion of the means limit would help to simplify the situation. It would remove from the minds of private firms and employers disposed to superannuate aged employés the difficulty that, within the limits of the present scale, what they propose to provide would come out of the old age pension; and the result would be, as my right hon. Friend puts it, that old men would go off the wage-sheet, and young fellows would come off the Poor Law, out-relief and Unemployment Fund, very much to their advantage, and industry at large would benefit.
I should like to remind the House that in 1919 a very strong Committee was appointed by the Treasury for the purpose of inquiring into the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act and of making recommendations for its improvement. That Committee consisted of 18 members, representing every shade of political thought, and it included some distinguished members of the Civil Service. After sitting for many months, under the capable chairmanship of Sir Ryland Adkins, and examining a large number of witnesses, all of whom could claim an intimate knowledge of the circumstances of the pensioners and of the administration of the Act on its practical side, that Committee issued a Majority Report,
signed by no fewer than 11 of its members, and these three decisions were definitely formulated therein:

"(1) The incidence of the means limit introduces the old pauper taint, and brands the old age pension as a compassionate grant.
(2) The inclusion in the pensioner's means, by which he may lose his right to a pension, of certain kinds of income, injuriously affects thrift, benevolence and industry.
(3) The inquiries which are essential to the system cause a large amount of irritation and of friction."

The Report proceeds, and I would ask the House to mark these words:
We have, therefore, been forced to advocate that the means limit should be abolished altogether, and that the old age pensions be given to all citizens at the age of 70. We are of opinion that no other course will remove the very serious objection to the present system.
In the face of so weighty and authoritative a declaration, I venture to think that the time has come when the Old Age Pension should be raised to a new and a loftier plane. It should be treated, not as merely a dole for the relief of the necessitous, but also as a token of acknowledgment, on the part of the State, of its indebtedness to those aged citizens, men and women, who have borne the brunt in the discharge of the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, who have contributed of their strength and substance to the sustenance of the State, and who, consequently, are entitled, in their declining years, when their natural powers are abating, to some special consideration on the part of the State which they have served so long and so faithfully.
We hear a good deal in these days of the right to work, of the right of every individual born into a civilised State to have his opportunity to make his contribution to the general weal and welfare, to use and to exercise his inborn capacities and energies for the common good, and, consequently, to have his share of the rewards that attach to his own industry. But I venture to think that there is yet another right, scarcely less imperative or urgent—the right of the aged, after a lifetime of exhausting toil, to rest on this side of the grave amid conditions undulled by the black shadows of care and want. The House will observe that the Motion makes no reference either to a reduction of the age limit or to an increased amount. Personally, I am firmly convinced that the
age limit must be reduced to 65 for men and 60 for women, and I shall be prepared to support the increase of the weekly pension to 15s. and even to 20s. But to-night I am concerned only with one thing, and that is the deletion of the means limit. Like the present Prime Minister, one step is enough for me.
It has been urged on previous occasions that this will mean for the Exchequer an extra outlay of £15,000,000 a year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) said in his recent speech at Plymouth that, during the last 10 years, the cost of the fighting services has been increased from £86,000,000 to £145,000,000 a year. If the State can afford that, it ought to have no difficulty in finding an extra £15,000,000 for the aged. But I go further than that. I have never yet known a Government which has encountered any difficulty in finding the money for any project on which it has set its heart, and, unlike his two immediate predecessors at the Exchequer, the present Chancellor cannot plead the attenuated state of the Exchequer, for I observe that one of his own colleagues, the Secretary of State for War, in a recent speech at Burnley—another Burnley speech—declared that this country can afford to give pensions of 15s. a week at 65. I do not know whether the Minister for War made that statement with the authority and assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or whether it will be necessary for us to move the Adjournment again, or whether it was one of those flamboyant window-dressing devices, to which even Cabinet Ministers are addicted in the throes of an exciting by-election. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us whether his colleague was justified in making that statement. But be that as it may, I think this Motion will have his sympathy and his support. I am much more anxious to see the Resolution passed than I am to make any speech, and I, therefore, appeal to the House confidently to give this Motion its full and undivided support, and thus encourage and enable the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to give legislative effect, both to its purport and to its purpose, and by so doing hon. Members will have the satisfaction of knowing that they have done their
part in helping to purge the Old Age Pensions Act of every possible taint of pauperism and also of investing it with a new and gracious significance as the attestation and token of the nation's devotion to the welfare and to the interest of a deserving section of the community.

Lady TERRINGTON: I beg to second the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman—I mean the hon. Member; I wish he were right hon.—for this reason, that it appeals to my sense of justice and humanity. It proposes to meet the needs of those who are least able to help themselves at a period of life when they should receive the utmost assistance which the country's resources can afford. I am pleased to observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer publicly pledged himself to amending the Old Age Pension scheme. This is indeed good news for the necessitous aged. I have always regarded as one of the greatest blots on the existing method of administering Old Age Pensions that penalty placed upon thrift, decency and honest worth. Those who profited most from the grant of Old Age Pensions were not always those who led useful and industrious lives and who saved to the utmost of their means to provide for that rainy day which so often comes to those who live by their labour. Those people were penalised, while those who were wasteful and least careful of the management of their lives and were therefore less helpful to the nation, generally got as a right what was denied to the thrift, energy and respectability of the others. If it were necessary to plead to the present Government for a reform of the existing legislation, I should do so most earnestly, But I am quite sure that in appealing to them we are knocking at an open door as far as they are concerned. Speaking for myself, I strongly favour the age limit being reduced to 65, and I have many reasons for that. I find that so many women are needful of the money at an earlier age than are the men. They suffer in so many ways. They have to go through so many trials in life, especially those women who have to work so hard in the class to which I am referring. I should like to feel that we can, at least, give those who have attained the age of 70 the minimum of security to which they are entitled, but I should like to give them the maximum. It is absolutely
essential to free them from the invidious inquiries, and so forth, that are made into what they have saved.
There can be only one way of dealing with this question, and that is to place all old age pensions on the same level, as a right. There should be no unnecessary inquiries into the private means of anyone who makes a claim to a pension. It is so often those who have established the best right to consideration from the State who are the most pained and humiliated by inquiries, and most threatened by penalties. I believe that many deserving people over the present age limit for old age pensions have not yet asked for them, because they do not want to endure the humiliation of such inquiries, and do not want to be subjected to the indignities attaching to the existing system. We want to remove all this. We want to ensure that thrift and economy shall not be penalised, and thriftlessness encouraged. In my view, all legislation should be directed towards increasing the happiness of the greatest number, and I know no more beneficent legislation than that which will assure those who have given to the service of the country in their prime and strength, and have also been thrifty, shall not suffer in the declining winter of their years on account of their thriftiness. It is they who suffer from the stress of life more extremely than any others, for they carry the burden of a life of toil as well as thrift and the burden of age. Many of the aged, who in normal circumstances would have been assisted by generous and affectionate children have had their wage-earners stricken down during the Great War, and, in addition to the bitterness of distress and want, they have to endure through their remaining years greater bitterness, due to the loss of those who were most dear to them, because of any small savings which may have been left to them. It is for this class that I would earnestly plead to-night. The hearts of the House and of the nation must go out to these people. They must have our whole sympathies. Insofar as our national resources will permit, we must do all that lies in our power to smooth their declining years and to tide them over the winters of their struggles and discontents. The appaling rise in the cost of living, which has been going on, makes it very hard for these people. They might have been assisted by greater help
given as a right and not as charity. It is they who have given their life's labour, and very often their children, to the country, and yet their savings are of no account as against the careless and wasteful citizen.
I second this Motion, and I bespeak for it the support of every Member of this House, because I want to see that these people are treated well, and I want to feel that their difficulties can be honestly and justly dealt with. I want to see the sorrow, which I have met with in my short experience in this House, relieved. I had known of such sorrow before, but it has been brought particularly to my notice since I came here. Before then I had no idea that there was so much misery in the world. I want to feel that those who have laboured all their lives will not be subjected to the injustice of being treated less well than others who have not been such good citizens. I feel that these people include some of our best citizens, and I plead earnestly on their behalf in seconding this Motion in the very bad way in which I have done it. I may explain the reason for that by saying that I have listened to a rather depressing Debate, but I do not want to feel that because I am perhaps a little depressed I may in any way impede the cause for which I stand. I want to see both men and women get their fair share, that is, the whole pension, without any question of inquiry into their means, so that we may encourage the best citizens who shall not be penalised because they have done their best.

Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: There can be no doubt that every Member of this House, on whichever side he sits, is in hearty agreement with the principle which has been enunciated by the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution. I remember that on the 21st February last year, when a similar Motion was before the House, the Conservative party opposed it and voted against it. Personally I think that that was a mistake on the part of the Conservative party. For this reason very largely, and it is the reason which was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer only a few nights ago in connection with the widows' pensions. He said that he would support the Resolution and encourage it, but that he would not guarantee by any means to bring the Measure into operation in the current
year if he did not find funds available. I think that the position was exactly the same last year when the Conservative party voted against this Resolution. I think that way of treating a Resolution is a trifle immoral. But at the same time there is a limit to immorality, and I think that the limit of immorality has been overstepped recently by a responsible Minister of the Government. This matter was referred to by the Mover of the Resolution. I will read an extract from a newspaper, showing what was said by the Secretary of State for War at Burnley in regard to the question of old age pensions. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the proposal to give old age pensions at the rate of 15s. a week at the age of 65, and he said:
If the Labour party is given a real chance, these figures are not very far off in the future. This country is not only wealthy enough; it can do it with both hands and one leg tied up.
He might have carried that a little further and have said that the country could do it with both hands and legs tied up, pinioned and trussed, for I do not think that he realises the amount of money which his proposal would cost. It would cost in the current year, approximately, £110,000,000 sterling, and if continued for another 10 years it would run up to something like £125,000,000. Either that responsible Minister did not know what he was talking about, or he should not have made his statement at all. To my mind it was purely vote-catching. There was no possible chance of its being brought in this year or next year, and it was highly dishonest and immoral. I agree entirely with the Mover and the Seconder as to the desirability of removing the thrift disqualification in old age pensions. That should be removed, and also the inquisition into the income of pensioners. It must appear to be just to every hon. Member. I want to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to one point. There are only two kinds of pensioners who are subject to any income limitation whatever. One is the old age pensioner, and the other is the pre-War pensioner. I want to warn him that I and my friends intend to take every opportunity of pressing for the removal of the income limit in pre-War pensions as well.
I want to make a suggestion to the Government as to a way of
dealing with old age pensions. Personally, I view the detailed terms of the Resolution as unsound. The Mover said that he considered it desirable to move the abolition of any means limit. Some people do not require the old age pension, and it is eminently desirable that there should be a means limit of some sort. There is in existence at present an inquisition which it is impossible to remove, and that is the inquisition for the purpose of Income Tax. The proper limitation for old age pensions should coincide with the limitation for Income Tax. It would work suitably in every way, for there would be a rebate for married couples, as in the case of Income Tax. I understand that the removal of the means limit would cost this year something between £15,000,000 and £17,000,000 additional expenditure. I also gather that owing to a large increase of population in the last 70 years, and the longevity at the present moment, that the increase of expenditure will be greater and greater in the years to come, and that it will run up to something like £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 a year in the course of the next few years, which is a very serious consideration. I believe myself it is sound to modify the means limit, but I would consider it sounder still to run a voluntary scheme which would give a greater benefit at a lower age and still further encourage people to save their money for the benefit of their old age. I believe it is quite possible to combine health insurance and old age pensions for a start. We might have some place on the health insurance card where the stamp could be placed for the old age pension contribution and that by a small weekly contribution you could be able to raise the old age pension up to 20s., and give it at 60 That is extremely desirable. If that were brought into operation running parallel with the existing scheme of old age pensions I believe it would materially lighten the cost to the State in the long run. I believe it is worth while for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to investigate this matter. I have had actuarial statistics drawn out, and it appears to me a voluntary contributory scheme would be appreciated by the people as a
whole, and it would lower the cost to the taxpayer. This matter has been neglected too long, and it is one to which all parties should lend their attention in the future.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): I am sorry to deprive other Members who are anxious to take part in this Debate of the opportunity, but I suppose that they will expect the Government to have a word or two. As I listened to the speech of the hon. Member who moved this Resolution I was reminded of the days of my own irresponsibility. He spoke in an airy manner about the ease with which tens and fifties of millions could be got. The only comfort that I, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, had during this Debate was given to me by the hon. Member who has just sat down when he dissented from the suggestion that there should be universal old age pensions. There is a good deal of ambiguity about the abolition of the means limit. The hon. Member himself used the phrase in quite a different sense from that in which he had used it earlier. There is no political party in this House which is pledged to the abolition of all the means limit. Each of the political parties in its last election manifesto was pledged to the removal of what was called the thrift disqualification. That figure had a place in the last King's Speech.
The Prime Minister, in announcing the programme of this Government for the present Session, said that pledge would be honoured. It is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill at a comparatively early date. I am sure the House will not expect me to anticipate the proposals of that Bill. We accept the principle of the Resolution now before the House, and all I need say further is that, in drafting the Bill which we shall submit to the House, we shall make its provisions as generous as it is possible to make them in the present financial conditions.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: When I came down to the House I can assure hon. Members and the Chancellor of the Exchequer I had no intention of intervening personally in this Debate. But at the same time the brief but very important statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer leaves me in some doubt as to the attitude of the Government. I understood the right hon. Gentleman,
in terms of genial remonstrance, and with encouraging reference to his own salad days, to repudiate the proposal for universal old age pensions, but to indicate the intention of the Government to deal with the present restrictions in the sense of modifying them and, no doubt, of making the administration or distribution of pensions more generous. With that statement I have no quarrel, and I should be perfectly content to await the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman will make at the proper time, and which I quite agree it would be unreasonable to ask him to produce on a Motion of this kind after such a very short Debate. But before he sat down he said, "We accept the principle of the Motion." What is the principle of the Motion? We are accustomed to talk about principles in politics very loosely, and on some of the large questions it is perhaps a little difficult to define or state the exact point at which principle arises and expediency ceases to govern the question. But when we are dealing with a Resolution of three and a half lines, it should be possible for the plain man to know what the principle of the Resolution is. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who listened to the speech and repudiated the speech, read the Resolution, the principle of which he accepts? The Resolution is to the effect that the House is of opinion that steps should be taken not for the amendment of the present Act, not for the reconsideration of the limit, not for the removal of the thrift bar, not for anything the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to do according to the earlier part of the speech—as, I doubt not, it does express his real meaning—but for the abolition of any means limit. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the two minutes which still remain add one sentence to the speech he has delivered, and say does the first portion of that speech express his real meaning, or are we to look for his real meaning in the second portion?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Hon. Members will recall that I said there was a good deal of ambiguity in the use of the term "abolition of the means limit."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Resolution uses the words "any means limit."

Mr. SNOWDEN: I pointed out that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had used the term in two different senses. What I meant when I said we accepted the principle of the Resolution was that we accept the idea contained in the Resolution that there should be some amendment of the law with regard to the distribution of pensions.

Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his consent and declined then to put that Question.

Colonel GRETTON: rose—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood, adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — TRADE FACILITIES BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Tynemouth Gas Company, which was presented on the 17th January and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Uxbridge, Wycombe, and District Gas Company, which was presented on the 15th January and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the
Wolverhampton Gas Company, which was presented on the 15th January and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the York Town and Blackwater Gas Company, which was presented on the 15th January and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Bedford Gaslight Company, which was presented on the 15th January and published, be approved.
—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC PETITIONS (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed, to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, provided that on every separate sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it; and that such Committee shall have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.

Mr. William M. Adamson, Mr. Batey, Mr. Blundell, Sir William Bull, Mr. Clarry, Mr. Alfred T. Davies, Lieut.-Colonel England, Mr. Hirst, Lieut.-Colonel James, Sir Robert Newbald Kay, Mr. Foot Mitchell, Mr. Nixon, Mr. George Oliver, Mr. Parry, and Mr. Sunlight nominated members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—[Mr. Griffiths.]

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. F. Hall.]

Mr. GAVAN-DUFFY: The matter I desire to raise concerns only an individual, but it does involve a public principle, with which is connected the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I cannot altogether deal with the matter without making reference to the individual who is concerned. The matter deals with the case of a man who made application for unemployment benefit to the Cleator Moor Employment Exchange. At the time, he was the licensee of a public house, and the question which the Committee had to decide was whether he was in receipt of 3s. 4d. a day in holding the licence of the public house. The whole question which had to be decided, first by the unemployment committee, locally, was what was his regular occupation, and it was found that he had been for 22 years constantly employed as an iron ore miner, that he had been during 16 of those years fully employed at Postlethwaite's iron ore mine, at Moor Row, and had worked in that mine until he was thrown out of employment by trade depression. The only question was, what was his regular occupation, and whether he was making 3s. 4d. a day through holding the licence. This matter was brought, in the first place, before the local unemployment committee. It was taken to the court of referees at Workington, and from them to the umpire in London. We have always been told, and I have been told to-day in an official communication from the Minister of Labour, that the decision of the umpire in all cases is final.
If the decision of the umpire in this case had not been final I would not be detaining the House to-night. A curious thing is that the matter was discussed before the umpire in London, and, after the umpire had taken more than three weeks to consider the whole matter, he gave a decision in favour of the applicant. The decision of the umpire was that the man was not making 3s. 4d. a day through holding the licence of the public-house, and, as a matter of fact, his regular occupation was that of an iron-ore miner, and he was genuinely unemployed. The man received a considerable proportion of the arrears which had accrued,
but three weeks afterwards the insurance officer in London interfered, and instructed an investigating officer to go down and inspect the premises occupied by this man Watson. It was then reported to the umpire that instead of four rooms, as originally stated, there were actually eight rooms, but by bringing in four dilapidated rooms, quite unfit for a decent man to live in, it was impossible to say that there were eight rooms instead of four. I went so far as to offer to pay out of my own pocket the expenses of the umpire going down and inspecting the premises, because I was sure that if he saw it he would come to the conclusion that the inspecting officer had made a deliberately false report. I did the next best thing, secured photographs of every room in the house, submitted the photographs to the umpire, and, strange to say, without considering the matter for one moment the umpire at once reversed his previous decision. That, to my mind, undermines and destroys any faith we might have in the decisions of the umpire in the future. We have always been led to believe that the umpire's decision was final and binding. We want to know what decision he will make, and when. I submit that the Department of the Ministry of Labour is seriously to blame, if anyone is to blame, for not providing the umpire with the proper information at the beginning. If the investigating officer was necessary after the umpire's decision was given, then surely the report of that officer ought to have been there before the umpire's first decision. We had the original inquiry by the Insurance Committee, and no investigating officer's report. We had report of the referees, and still no investigating officer's report. We had the umpire in London considering the matter for an hour, and still no investigating officer's report. The investigating officer's report was three weeks after the decision was given in favour of the applicant. That is a clear indication of the utterly corrupt and mendacious way in which the Unemployment Insurance Act is managed. Though I do not allege the Minister of Labour would be a party of anything of the kind, I do appeal to him to investigate the matter, because I feel certain that he will send a worthy and honest man from here—

Mr. BUCHANAN: You cannot get an honest man here.

Mr. GAVAN-DUFFY: Well the nearest approach to it. If any man inspects the buildings there, he must come to the conclusion that a wrong report has been made and this man has been wrongly deprived of unemployment benefit. If the report of the investigating officer was an essential thing, and I think it ought to have been, it ought to have taken place before the umpire had given his original report. I appeal to the Minister of Labour to make an inquiry so that an act of justice may be done to the man and, what is more important, that confidence may be restored in the decisions of the umpire.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. S. Webb): I am very sorry to say that, owing to some mischance—possibly the hon. Member for Whitehaven did not manage to convey adequate notice—the Minister of Labour is not in the House. It falls to me to make, at any rate, an apology to the hon. Member, because I feel sure that the tale he has told is one which must be inquired into. I will communicate with the Minister of Labour, and I think I can undertake that it shall be inquired into. The House will, of course, realise that while the hon. Member has told his tale—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Not a tale.

Mr. WEBB: When I say a tale, I do not mean an untrue tale—there is always in these matters another side, and I do not think we ought to accept right away the notion that the administration of unemployment insurance is corrupt or mendacious. Accidents sometimes happen, and it may possibly be that there has been a miscarriage of justice here. I think all that can be said is that I will convey to the Minister of Labour what has been represented, and the hon. Member for Whitehaven may rest assured that inquiry will be made, that the matter will be gone into, and that he will be communicated with as to the result.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter after Eleven o'Clock.